A Challenge for a Solution to Lake Speeds

Hottrucks · 01-27-2008, 10:23 AM

Over the years i have noticed one thing and I think you will find this in many motor sports....the men/women that are true go fast people aren't the problem they are truthfully probably the best examples for there respective sports/hobbies..what we need to clamp down on is " Capt. Bonehead"
I'll use the same term as allot of others here ..the GFBL people don't run these boats flat out all the time and I'm sure that they want the same thing as everyone else....a Safe place to boat... I'm not going to even try to find or post #'s but Most all of us use our boats to hang out and relax with maybe ( Just a guess by looking @ alot of Hours meters) 10% of the time the boat is even running...yea we all have gone some place store, restaurant where ever and to say you never had an adult beverage I think would be a lie from 99.9% of boats...but we need to clamp down on what we all know is a big problem and probally cause of most accedents..it has been done in the cars and maybe we need to get on this a little harder.....AS has been said a million times people need to taught what proper edicate on the water is along with some common sence.....I think we need to find a way to get Joe weekend rental guy some of this and make the rental place more responceable, maybe all rentals should be tagged with there names ( we could all run the other way then) in 8" high letters down both sides..

That my .02 on this but I could go on!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff

JayDV · 01-28-2008, 10:29 AM

I remember my first try at barefoot skiiing. What a thrill! But that brings up a good point.

What are viable reasons to travel greater than 45mph?
1) Barefoot skiing - I believe they recommend > 48mph.
2) How about outrunning an electrical storm to port or home providing waves not too large?
3) Sea planes landing and takeoff

Here is a good one:
Is the lake a lake when it is frozen? If so ... any snowmobilers out there?

There may be others, but if bill goes through are these listed activities breaking the law?

If the law exists and these activities are overlooked does that mean the law can be bent? And does that set the precedent that attys can now cite thus further binding officers hands about enforcing laws? Not to mention the unrecoverable court costs involved.

fatlazyless · 01-28-2008, 11:23 AM

On February 2, 2006; HB162 which was the last version of the current HB847 speed limits, passed the 400 volunteer member, New Hampshire House of State Representatives by 193-139. On March 16, 2006 it died in the 24 member New Hampshire State Senate by 15-9.

Since 2006, the NH House and Senate have both changed from a red Republican to a blue Democratic majority.

Governor John Lynch has indicated that he will sign the speed limits bill if it reaches his desk.

Contrary to what someone like myself may incorrectly assume, the speed limits issue is not really a partisan D-R split issue as there as D's & R's on both sides of the issue.

The leader of the anti-speed limits in the House looks to be its' Republican minority leader, Rep. Mike Whalley (R) Alton, who also is one of the owner's of the state's largest jetski & jetboat dealership. So, he has a personal business interest here.

If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Something new this year, which was not here in 2006, is the proposed community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford on Lake Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire Department of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association to build a community sailing building-sailing teaching facility at the end of the beautifull sandy beach in the corner close to Scenic Drive. It is scheduled to open in 2009!

If you want to help build the new community sailing facility, www.lwsa.org, a fully tax deductible organization, there is a donations link at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3. Please check out this website and the photographs for some insight into youth sailing, ages 8-16, & adults, on Lake Winnipesaukee, or take a peek at the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the boating section, which includes a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun.

With the speed limit scheduled to be voted in the NH House on this Wednesday, how can the community sailing program coexist with 32'-8000lb-1200hp boats capable of 80-100mph who's owners insist that going 80-100mph is acceptable? The sailing program started in about 1988 and has outgrown it's hardworking, and highly regarded, Smith Cove facility in Gilford at www.FaysBoatyard.com and is making a giant step forward with its' move to the extremely attractive sandy beach at Ellacoya State Park located on the wide open expanse of Lake Winnipesaukee.
....

JayDV · 01-28-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On February 2, 2006;
If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les, but according to definitions from 2 dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel) vessels, among a couple of non-relevant definitions, ARE referring to aircraft. And since "travelling" would be reason for a vessel a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races.

The sailing group is a great idea, but is ice sailing not really sailing? Or the 45+ speeds attained in an iceboat excusable? And do they ice sail or race in coves? or only open spaces?

These are some more reasons that the slows and the fasts work together to reach resolutions not stand on opposite shores and digitally orate.

BroadHopper · 01-28-2008, 12:42 PM

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

Skip · 01-28-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

OK, lets try and kill this one last time.

HB 847 specificall addresses "vessels" on Lake Winnipesukee.

RSA 270-D:1 states: ...XI. ""Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.
Therefore by statute your aircraft is exempt from the speed limit as proposed is HB 847. There is no gray area or technicality that could include your aircraft under the bill proposed.

Further proof?

RSA 270:13-a closes any argument on HB 847 or any other regulation that would hamper your ability to take off or land:

270:13-a Operation of Seaplanes or Helicopters on Public Waters. –
I. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats which lands on public waters shall be exempt from all laws and rules concerning the operation of boats for the purpose of landing and taking off from such public waters.
II. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats shall exercise due caution and respect for the rights and safety of any person or boat using the public waters.

As for the applicability of HB 847 to ice racers or snowmobiles, neither meet the definiton of watercraft therefore they also are exempt from HB 847.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.....

Skip

Woodsy · 01-29-2008, 10:24 AM

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.

Woodsy

JayDV · 01-29-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.

Woodsy

I like this one. Complete with how the offenders will be handled. Thanks a lot. If the lights go on, the speed comes down. Cool.
Some people may not like the $5/non-motorized boat water access sticker, but a good idea. Here in CT we pay $20/year/registered vehicle for a town sticker that allows us use of town dump and parking at beaches regardles of number of times used.

Bear Islander · 01-29-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847! ....

Woodsy

This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true.

I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.

Woodsy · 01-29-2008, 03:35 PM

Bear Islander...

When was there ever a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH proposed by HB-847? Please post the accident specifics!

In the last 5 YEARS there has only been 1 fatal boat vs. boat collision on Lake Winnipesaukee... and that occured at night at an estimated 28MPH! If you want to look like a fool and split hairs over 3 MPH, go ahead. This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum.

Why do we need HB-847? Because of 1 fatal accident that occurred at night, that involved ALCOHOL and occurred 5 YEARS AGO? That consitutes a demonstrable need for speed limit? WOW!! Thats a pretty good stretch even for you!

Woodsy

Bear Islander · 01-29-2008, 03:52 PM

Woodsy

If you were aware of even 1 accident then you should not have posted "ABSOLUTELY NO DATA".\

But nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to nighttime only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

You only came up with those qualifications after I showed you your post was a lie!

There is more than enough data, and more than enough deaths, including two last summer on a lake not far from here.

chmeeee · 01-29-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

Quote:

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

You have to cut data collection off somewhere, one accident in five years certainly indicates a lack of a pattern.

Quote:

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Winnipesaukee is in New Hampshire, see my first response.

Quote:

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Not that I know of any non-boat to boat, but they are not as relevant to the problem. A single boat collision generally indicates that only those involved in the alleged irresponsible activity were affected.

Quote:

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

You were the one that indicated there were fatal accidents. Show us your data.

Quote:

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

Evenstar · 01-29-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

HB-847 is written to include a speed limit on all NH lakes. The amendment to limit it to Winnipesaukee was added by the House Transportation Committee. When the House votes on the Bill, they will also have to vote on any amendments that were added. The original Bill could pass with or without any amendments.

Quote:

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

One very strong argument for a lake speed limit law is actually BWI. People who operate under the influence often disreguard speed limits. Without a speed limit law all the MP has is their judgment that the operator is being reckless. A speed limit could make BWI behavior easier to spot.

Another point: Collisions might be rare, but close calls seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes, so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. But whenever we point this out, we are told that we are exagerating (or are accused of lying). This is not a conspiracy - many of us have conclude from our own personal experience on the lake(s) that high speed boats are a danger to us.

The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not a danger to paddlers.

Reducing the maximum speeds of boats will make any lake safer - that's a fact.

Bear Islander · 01-29-2008, 07:09 PM

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Anything else?

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.

If you can't stand the heat...... Stop cooking the data!

Airwaves · 01-29-2008, 07:35 PM

Bear Island wrote in part:

Quote:

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.

I never did hear the outcome of that PWC fatal. IIRC a 15? year old boy was found alone and dead on his PWC but I never heard the circumstances that caused the death, has anyone else?

codeman671 · 01-29-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Anything else?

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.

I am glad we agree on something!

The underage accident on Winnipesaukee does not count in defense of the need for a speed limit in my opinion. Yes, it was an unfortunate incident, but the facts remain that the driver was underage and probably did not have the training or experience to be out there. The parents are at fault for allowing usage of the machine and failed to keep their child safe. Isn't that what parenting is about? Protecting our children. Also, I do not recall any reports that speed was a factor.

I do agree that an accident on Long Lake is close enough to take into account, however the key factor was alcohol. The driver was drinking and most likely showing off to a younger passenger. The guy was a moron and two people died. I have not heard of anyone really fighting a night time limit. At 60mph at night clearly the boat was traveling faster than it should given the conditions.

Taken the above into account, compare it to the Meredith accident and you come up with two common denominators: alcohol and night time. A speed limit will not stop drinking, nothing will. If people want to get smashed and drive they will do it regardless. I think that similar outcomes would be found if the perps were driving other types of boats. Nobody needs to be traveling 60mph at night as in the Maine accident. Speed was not the issue in the NH case.

Being that the data shows a night time only issue, make it a night time speed limit and step up patrols in the vicinity of public docks to prevent people leaving bars drunk from driving away in their boat. This could be aided by the local PD's and is not only the job of MP to enforce.

You still can't fix stupid, but this is a better choice than a full-blown limit.

Bear Islander · 01-30-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I do agree that an accident on Long Lake is close enough to take into account, however the key factor was alcohol. The driver was drinking and most likely showing off to a younger passenger.

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

chipj29 · 01-30-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

So you admit that your wish for a speed limit is solely to keep a certain type of boat off of Lake Winni, right?

codeman671 · 01-30-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

Is the fact that the boat owner was boating in Maine instead of Mass truly because of a speed limit in Mass? I doubt it, that is your opinion. Many out of staters have places in NH or Mass, including yourself. This does not mean he doesn't boat in Mass, or was forced to boat in Maine due to a lack of speed limits there.

What makes you think the speed limit would have kept him off the lake altogether? That is absurd. I have 2 boats that go over 45mph, that does not mean I will take them elsewhere because of a speed limit. Unless you got your HP limit there is still nothing to prevent him from boating legally in his Dominator on Long Lake, or Winnipesaukee for that matter. You might as well push for prohibition to be brought back as well, it is the only shot you have at slowing or preventing the drunks. Alcohol and stupidity is to blame, not the type of boat in both cases.

Being that at the time of the incident Shep Brown's was the local Sunsation dealer I am surprised that you have not blamed the Littlefield's for this one too...

fatlazyless · 01-30-2008, 09:00 AM

Today could be an interesting day at the NH Statehouse if the HB 847 proposal gets to the floor of the House. Today is a rainy, dreary and warm 40ish day, here in New Hampshire. The House of Representatives has floorseats for the 400 state reps, and the balcony has seats for 200 spectators.

Most likely, the combined anti-HB847 forces of Rupublican minority leader Rep Mike Whalley (R) Alton, the NH Marine Trades Assoc lobby group, and their partners in the local and national high performance, boat business will do their best to slow down HB 847, so they can go fast.

Perhaps a compelling and articulate motivational speaker telling the 400 volunteer state reps how and why Lake Winnipesaukee needs to have 'a need for speed.' ...good luck to the go fast-be loud crowd....methinks it will be a tough sell....

Bear Islander · 01-30-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Is the fact that the boat owner was boating in Maine instead of Mass truly because of a speed limit in Mass? I doubt it, that is your opinion. Many out of staters have places in NH or Mass, including yourself. This does not mean he doesn't boat in Mass, or was forced to boat in Maine due to a lack of speed limits there.

What makes you think the speed limit would have kept him off the lake altogether? That is absurd. I have 2 boats that go over 45mph, that does not mean I will take them elsewhere because of a speed limit. Unless you got your HP limit there is still nothing to prevent him from boating legally in his Dominator on Long Lake, or Winnipesaukee for that matter. You might as well push for prohibition to be brought back as well, it is the only shot you have at slowing or preventing the drunks. Alcohol and stupidity is to blame, not the type of boat in both cases.

Being that at the time of the incident Shep Brown's was the local Sunsation dealer I am surprised that you have not blamed the Littlefield's for this one too...

This is not about Marinas or a type of boat. It is about the direction the lake is going in. I'm sure that there are some people that can operate high performance boats safely, even on Winnipesaukee. It's a shame that this legislation, if passed, will inconvenience some responsible members of the lake community.

But if other lakes, like Lake George or Long Lake have speed limits and we do not, then this lake will be the destination for high performance boating. There are people boating here now that were on Lake George years ago.

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains. That is a bad combination for an already crowded lake. Long Lake learned that lesson last summer. I am supporting legislation I believe may prevent similar lessons on Winni.

Cal · 01-30-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains.

And let us not forget the people who have large wallets and narrow minds

chipj29 · 01-31-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is not about Marinas or a type of boat. It is about the direction the lake is going in. I'm sure that there are some people that can operate high performance boats safely, even on Winnipesaukee. It's a shame that this legislation, if passed, will inconvenience some responsible members of the lake community.

But if other lakes, like Lake George or Long Lake have speed limits and we do not, then this lake will be the destination for high performance boating. There are people boating here now that were on Lake George years ago.

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains. That is a bad combination for an already crowded lake. Long Lake learned that lesson last summer. I am supporting legislation I believe may prevent similar lessons on Winni.

You do realize that you are totally contradicting yourself, right?

ApS · 01-30-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive. As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

"Others" need to include the latest WaveRunner Cruiser Jet-Ski. It weighs a lighter 840 pounds now (down 25%), and has a supercharged engine.

I tried to find out the top speed of this craft that goes 0-30-MPH in under two seconds, but nobody's sayin'.

This quote did appear, however:

Quote:

"I like the WaveRunner Cruiser. Questions have been asked if it is capable of 75 mph. I was told at the dealership it was capable of doing 85 mph...by my speedometer, I went 76 mph at that point I backed off. I was being raised out of the seat. Too fast for me. I probably won't do that again."

http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/en...21658&veh=8676

Surely, it can be made to go faster, right?

Dave R · 02-01-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

Take your boat down to the CT. River just north of Springfield MA for a day sometime. You'll get to experience boating with a 45 MPH speed limit. Like Lake George, it's loaded with GFBL boats going well over 45 MPH. Be careful what you wish for...

Bear Islander · 02-01-2008, 11:21 AM

When boats on Lake George are going "well over" the limit, are they going in the 45 to 60 range? If they are, then I don't see the problem. If they are going 90 mph then Lake George has an enforcement problem they need to address.

Route 93 has a 65 mph limit. Yet 70, 75 and even 80 are the norm in the left lane. That is called human nature. The same will be true on Winni, just as it is on George.

However people that go double the limit will end up standing in front of a judge. This will be true on Route 93, Lake George and Winnipesaukee.

Dave R · 02-01-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When boats on Lake George are going "well over" the limit, are they going in the 45 to 60 range?

Beats me. My point was that you may think MA and NY have a great thing going with thier speed limits, but if you actually try boating there, you'll find that it's far less pleasant than Winnipesaukee. We have a great thing going on this lake, not sure why you'd want to change it, especially to make it more like MA and NY lakes.

chmeeee · 01-29-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime (where was this said?), involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Well yes, I do think that in order to be considered the accident should be relevant to the proposed law. Thank you for laying it out.

Woodsy · 01-29-2008, 10:24 PM

QUOTE=Bear Islander;62238]This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true.

I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.[/QUOTE]

Bear Islander...

HB-847 proposes both DAYTIME and NIGHTTIME speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee ONLY. I had earlier proposed a compromise, essentially a night time speed limit. It was in this light that I rationally responded to the above highlighted sentence in your post.

However, if you want to split hairs I will be happy to do so. Although it does seem like trying to reason with you is very similar to trying to reason with a spoiled 3 year old child.

HB-847 is Lake Winnipesaukee specific, so one would think your response should be Lake Winnipesaukee specific. However, if you can come up with an incident/accident that occured on a different NH lake, I'll accept it.

So I ask you again... in very simple terms... When was there EVER a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH? Again.. Please post the accident specifics!

I did not put a time frame on the accident data. I merely stated that the last fatal accident that occurred as the result boat vs. boat occurred at night, 5 years ago at an estimated speed of 28MPH... and there was ALCOHOL involved!

Woodsy

Skip · 01-28-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayDV

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les...a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races...

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

JayDV · 01-28-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

Thanks Skip. I'm confident in your knowledge and memory. I'm merely trying to identify that there may be activities where speed limits may be exceeded. Sea planes landing and taking off is a big one as they have as much (or as little) emergency reaction time as the fast boats that have created a stir. And yes, I am reaching when I included frozen water and ice craft, but I watch Law & Order and I see how some of these McCoy-types tweak mindsets. It is easier to identify extreme instances and discount them, then to realize after the fact that something should have been included.

But aside from emergency vessels and barefoot skiing and bass boats, and I'll include Official Sanctioned Events, is there circumstances where excessive speed is needed or practiced?

Dick · 01-28-2008, 11:37 AM

Once again I must take my hat off to you for your intelligent and thoughful thinking. Many legislators (probably most) do not have any firsthand experience operating a boat on Winnipesaukee. Therefore, they do not have the insights into what all the implications may be for passing a new restrictive law. Have they thought about how this bill would restrict snowmobilers, barefoot skiers, bass fishermen? . . . I doubt it.

Are we turning into a nanny state? Most of us want government to stay out of our lives unless there is a very good objective reason to pass a new restrictive law. As I've written before, emotional "I'm afraid" stories should not trump the facts. Just because a bunch of organized lakeshore property owners want to drive the big performance boats off their lake and into the ocean does not make it right.

fatlazyless · 01-28-2008, 11:58 AM

...a nanny state...a nanny state...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 27' twin-hull, Skater-CAT w/ twin Merc 300hp, high performance two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

Dick · 01-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...a Nanny State...a Nanny State...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 32' Skater w/ twin Merc 300hp, two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

I am not that man.

If that gentleman was out on The Broads on a week day, with few if any other boats in sight, and visibilty was very good, 45 mph would be an unreasonable restriction. On the other hand, if this gentleman was coming into a congested area within Wolfboro Bay, 45 mph (or even 30 mph) would be too fast. This is why NH, like most states, have adopted the U.S. Coast Guard guideline of operating your watercraft in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the prevailing conditions. As evidenced by our excellent boating safety record here in New Hampshire, this has served us very well. You can't pick a blanket arbitrary speed limit number and expect it to make sense in all conditions.

Rattlesnake Guy · 01-28-2008, 12:01 PM

OK, here's my compromise.

7 to 45mph = 150 foot rule
45 to 75 = 300 foot rule
75 and up = 600 foot rule.

Maps show three zones so we all know where it is even possible for a boat to consider a high speed range. 600 feet would restrict the boats to fairly ideal conditions in large areas.

01-28-2008, 10:29 AM	#2
JayDV Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Fairfield, CT & island vacation Posts: 97 Thanks: 8 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I remember my first try at barefoot skiiing. What a thrill! But that brings up a good point. What are viable reasons to travel greater than 45mph? 1) Barefoot skiing - I believe they recommend > 48mph. 2) How about outrunning an electrical storm to port or home providing waves not too large? 3) Sea planes landing and takeoff Here is a good one: Is the lake a lake when it is frozen? If so ... any snowmobilers out there? There may be others, but if bill goes through are these listed activities breaking the law? If the law exists and these activities are overlooked does that mean the law can be bent? And does that set the precedent that attys can now cite thus further binding officers hands about enforcing laws? Not to mention the unrecoverable court costs involved. Last edited by JayDV; 01-28-2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason: add'l thought

01-28-2008, 11:23 AM	#3
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,738 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,007 Times in 735 Posts	On February 2, 2006; HB162 which was the last version of the current HB847 speed limits, passed the 400 volunteer member, New Hampshire House of State Representatives by 193-139. On March 16, 2006 it died in the 24 member New Hampshire State Senate by 15-9. Since 2006, the NH House and Senate have both changed from a red Republican to a blue Democratic majority. Governor John Lynch has indicated that he will sign the speed limits bill if it reaches his desk. Contrary to what someone like myself may incorrectly assume, the speed limits issue is not really a partisan D-R split issue as there as D's & R's on both sides of the issue. The leader of the anti-speed limits in the House looks to be its' Republican minority leader, Rep. Mike Whalley (R) Alton, who also is one of the owner's of the state's largest jetski & jetboat dealership. So, he has a personal business interest here. If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes. Something new this year, which was not here in 2006, is the proposed community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford on Lake Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire Department of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association to build a community sailing building-sailing teaching facility at the end of the beautifull sandy beach in the corner close to Scenic Drive. It is scheduled to open in 2009! If you want to help build the new community sailing facility, www.lwsa.org, a fully tax deductible organization, there is a donations link at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3. Please check out this website and the photographs for some insight into youth sailing, ages 8-16, & adults, on Lake Winnipesaukee, or take a peek at the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the boating section, which includes a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun. With the speed limit scheduled to be voted in the NH House on this Wednesday, how can the community sailing program coexist with 32'-8000lb-1200hp boats capable of 80-100mph who's owners insist that going 80-100mph is acceptable? The sailing program started in about 1988 and has outgrown it's hardworking, and highly regarded, Smith Cove facility in Gilford at www.FaysBoatyard.com and is making a giant step forward with its' move to the extremely attractive sandy beach at Ellacoya State Park located on the wide open expanse of Lake Winnipesaukee. .... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 01-29-2008 at 09:22 AM.

01-28-2008, 12:42 PM	#5
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,570 Thanks: 3,207 Thanked 1,101 Times in 793 Posts	The way I see it. I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

01-29-2008, 10:24 AM	#7
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,965 Thanks: 80 Thanked 979 Times in 440 Posts	HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847! If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety.... 1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself! 2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs! 3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases! 4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license. 5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching! 6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night. Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

01-29-2008, 03:35 PM	#10
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,965 Thanks: 80 Thanked 979 Times in 440 Posts	Incorrect?? Bear Islander... When was there ever a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH proposed by HB-847? Please post the accident specifics! In the last 5 YEARS there has only been 1 fatal boat vs. boat collision on Lake Winnipesaukee... and that occured at night at an estimated 28MPH! If you want to look like a fool and split hairs over 3 MPH, go ahead. This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum. Why do we need HB-847? Because of 1 fatal accident that occurred at night, that involved ALCOHOL and occurred 5 YEARS AGO? That consitutes a demonstrable need for speed limit? WOW!! Thats a pretty good stretch even for you! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

01-27-2008, 10:23 AM	#1
Hottrucks Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Lakes region NH Posts: 48 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Over the years i have noticed one thing and I think you will find this in many motor sports....the men/women that are true go fast people aren't the problem they are truthfully probably the best examples for there respective sports/hobbies..what we need to clamp down on is " Capt. Bonehead" I'll use the same term as allot of others here ..the GFBL people don't run these boats flat out all the time and I'm sure that they want the same thing as everyone else....a Safe place to boat... I'm not going to even try to find or post #'s but Most all of us use our boats to hang out and relax with maybe ( Just a guess by looking @ alot of Hours meters) 10% of the time the boat is even running...yea we all have gone some place store, restaurant where ever and to say you never had an adult beverage I think would be a lie from 99.9% of boats...but we need to clamp down on what we all know is a big problem and probally cause of most accedents..it has been done in the cars and maybe we need to get on this a little harder.....AS has been said a million times people need to taught what proper edicate on the water is along with some common sence.....I think we need to find a way to get Joe weekend rental guy some of this and make the rental place more responceable, maybe all rentals should be tagged with there names ( we could all run the other way then) in 8" high letters down both sides.. That my .02 on this but I could go on!!!!!!!!!! Jeff

01-29-2008, 03:52 PM	#11
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Woodsy If you were aware of even 1 accident then you should not have posted "ABSOLUTELY NO DATA".\ But nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to nighttime only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only! Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only! You only came up with those qualifications after I showed you your post was a lie! There is more than enough data, and more than enough deaths, including two last summer on a lake not far from here.

01-29-2008, 07:09 PM	#14
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	OK, Just so we all understand. For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved. Anything else? Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni. If you can't stand the heat...... Stop cooking the data!

01-30-2008, 09:00 AM	#20
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,738 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,007 Times in 735 Posts	Today could be an interesting day at the NH Statehouse if the HB 847 proposal gets to the floor of the House. Today is a rainy, dreary and warm 40ish day, here in New Hampshire. The House of Representatives has floorseats for the 400 state reps, and the balcony has seats for 200 spectators. Most likely, the combined anti-HB847 forces of Rupublican minority leader Rep Mike Whalley (R) Alton, the NH Marine Trades Assoc lobby group, and their partners in the local and national high performance, boat business will do their best to slow down HB 847, so they can go fast. Perhaps a compelling and articulate motivational speaker telling the 400 volunteer state reps how and why Lake Winnipesaukee needs to have 'a need for speed.' ...good luck to the go fast-be loud crowd....methinks it will be a tough sell.... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

02-01-2008, 11:21 AM	#26
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	When boats on Lake George are going "well over" the limit, are they going in the 45 to 60 range? If they are, then I don't see the problem. If they are going 90 mph then Lake George has an enforcement problem they need to address. Route 93 has a 65 mph limit. Yet 70, 75 and even 80 are the norm in the left lane. That is called human nature. The same will be true on Winni, just as it is on George. However people that go double the limit will end up standing in front of a judge. This will be true on Route 93, Lake George and Winnipesaukee.

01-29-2008, 10:24 PM	#29
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,965 Thanks: 80 Thanked 979 Times in 440 Posts	QUOTE=Bear Islander;62238]This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true. I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.[/QUOTE] Bear Islander... HB-847 proposes both DAYTIME and NIGHTTIME speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee ONLY. I had earlier proposed a compromise, essentially a night time speed limit. It was in this light that I rationally responded to the above highlighted sentence in your post. However, if you want to split hairs I will be happy to do so. Although it does seem like trying to reason with you is very similar to trying to reason with a spoiled 3 year old child. HB-847 is Lake Winnipesaukee specific, so one would think your response should be Lake Winnipesaukee specific. However, if you can come up with an incident/accident that occured on a different NH lake, I'll accept it. So I ask you again... in very simple terms... When was there EVER a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH? Again.. Please post the accident specifics! I did not put a time frame on the accident data. I merely stated that the last fatal accident that occurred as the result boat vs. boat occurred at night, 5 years ago at an estimated speed of 28MPH... and there was ALCOHOL involved! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

01-28-2008, 11:37 AM	#32
Dick Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Cute village in New Hampshire Posts: 36 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts	You have made some good points, Jay Once again I must take my hat off to you for your intelligent and thoughful thinking. Many legislators (probably most) do not have any firsthand experience operating a boat on Winnipesaukee. Therefore, they do not have the insights into what all the implications may be for passing a new restrictive law. Have they thought about how this bill would restrict snowmobilers, barefoot skiers, bass fishermen? . . . I doubt it. Are we turning into a nanny state? Most of us want government to stay out of our lives unless there is a very good objective reason to pass a new restrictive law. As I've written before, emotional "I'm afraid" stories should not trump the facts. Just because a bunch of organized lakeshore property owners want to drive the big performance boats off their lake and into the ocean does not make it right. __________________ We can achieve only that which we "see" in our vision, believe is possible, and expect to manifest.

01-28-2008, 11:58 AM	#33
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,738 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,007 Times in 735 Posts	...a nanny state...a nanny state...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 27' twin-hull, Skater-CAT w/ twin Merc 300hp, high performance two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 01-29-2008 at 09:25 AM.

01-28-2008, 12:01 PM	#35
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	OK, here's my compromise. 7 to 45mph = 150 foot rule 45 to 75 = 300 foot rule 75 and up = 600 foot rule. Maps show three zones so we all know where it is even possible for a boat to consider a high speed range. 600 feet would restrict the boats to fairly ideal conditions in large areas.