Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds.... - Page 6

TiltonBB · 04-15-2008, 02:35 PM

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake?

Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

Evenstar · 04-15-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

RSA 270:1 dates back to 1941 and the law was made to help prevent (among other things) the very things that we are debating here, which is that high-speed powerboats are making the lake unsafe for others. I, and many others, contend that the current unlimited speed limit is a very unsafe policy, and this law explicitly states that NH lakes are to be “regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment.” An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer.

Paddlers were on this lakes long before any powerboat – so you can’t really argue that canoes and kayaks are not among the “variety of uses.” Kayaks are the fastest growing recreational boat, so it’s not like their popularity is decreasing. I’m also not saying that it is ok to use a boat beyond what it was designed for or for an operator to use a boat beyond their own ability. That is putting yourself in danger.

What I am saying that if a boat that is designed for large bodies of water cannot be safely used by an experienced paddler on NH lakes, due to the actions of other boaters – that we have a major problem that needs to be addressed by regulation (which is part of RSA 270:1 requires).

Quote:

Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

Quote:

Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

I don’t “get in the way” – according to navigational rules, I have the right of way. Having said that, I don’t cut powerboats off and I try my best to stay out of their path. I have had to slow down fairly often for powerboaters who have cut me off.

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Mashugana · 04-15-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

{snip} The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

All of the above factors are controlled by law.

Show us where USCG defines excessive speed as over 45/25 mph or ANY solid numbers. Excessive speed could be 10 mph. Excessive speed is a relative and changing number which depends on many factors and circumstances.

BTW BI, you never gave an answer to the question that assumes all current boating laws are obeyed 100% what more would this 45/25 bill accomplish. Your style is to just dismiss the question saying that 100% compliance will never happen. We can all agree 100% will never happen. This simply takes away a variable for discussion.

Not only do you avoid and dismiss certain questions you raise doubts about the personality of the questioner (and I'm being very polite). Your posting style and debate tactics often appear hostile or designed to "press buttons". We can debate and discuss on this forum and still be friendly or do you want to change that too?

You claim that those who are against the 45/25 mph speed limit on Winnie are therefore advocating NO LIMITS. It's not true. The debate is about the proposed 45/25 mph speed limit or NO 45/25 mph speed limit. That is the question put to the NH House and Senate. BI Spin at work.

A side note. Just like there is a speed at which it becomes unreasonable so too is there a point when too many POSTS becomes unreasonable. Point in case: My (now locked) thread about riding on the Bow. There were 79 total posts in the thread. 18 were by Bear Islander. Not even ONE of his posts addressed the thread topic. Bear Islander responded to asides but failed to deal with the subject. He can claim that he was not the one to hijack the thread. Still, Almost 25% of the messages in that thread were by BI but none mentioned the topic, the safety or legality of riding on the bow of a boat. If I used BI tactics I'd say that BI must NOT be in favor about safety of riding on a bow. No PFDs and no seats designed for that activity but not on the agenda of Bear islander.

How many posts are too many? If you look at numbers, your USCG report shows that Excessive Speed (whatever the actual numbers are 10 mph or 100 mph) was listed as a factor in 18% of the total accidents. Your not-on-topic posts were almost 25% of the messages in the ride on bow thread. Just talking about the percentage for a moment and not the topic, which % is excessive, 25% or 18%?

A casualty of Speed Limits seems to be the thread I started about riding on the bow.

Teach me to come out of lurking and get involved.........

chmeeee · 04-15-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.

Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

Evenstar · 04-15-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ? Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

[quote=TiltonBB;67721]So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

Quote:

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

Quote:

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake? Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

Bear Islander · 04-15-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

Resident 2B · 04-15-2008, 04:22 PM

I think many are missing an important point.

In all bodies of water where the CG has gathered the data BI keeps pointing to, there is no 150' rule. So, any comparison to what is being proposed in NH were we have an existing 150' rule is completely bogus.

Excessive speed in CG's assessment can be any speed deamed too fast for existing conditions. Without a 150' NWZ around every other vessel, boats in CG waters are often moving at 25 MPH or faster even when within 25' to 50' of each other. It is a much more dangerous situation than we have on the lake. If you do not believe me, go out of Boston Harbor some summer week day, not even on a weekend, and you will see many things, much faster and much closer that we ever see on the lake. This is within the outer harbor, from Deer Island inwards to Logan airport.

We have a rule on the lake, the 150' rule, that works when enforced. The CG has no rule like it. Therefore, the boating environments are totally different and the data is not applicaple to this discussion.

It is like comparing apples and watermelons!

R2B

chmeeee · 04-15-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

Good Lord, I should have known you would do that. My point is that any speed is safer than every speed higher than it. Why 45 and not 35 or 55? Its an arbitrary limit pulled out of somebody's butt with no research to back it up.

Bear Islander · 04-15-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Good Lord, I should have known you would do that. My point is that any speed is safer than every speed higher than it. Why 45 and not 35 or 55? Its an arbitrary limit pulled out of somebody's butt with no research to back it up.

I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer.

Airwaves · 04-15-2008, 06:56 PM

This is part of a posting I wrote on the "Proposed Law" thread (#241) that seems appropriate here.

Quote:

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

Silver Duck · 04-15-2008, 07:23 PM

Islander

Since you do seem to have some sources for insight that I lack, I'd be quite interested in discussing the subject with you once the season gets rolling (though the way ice-out is going, it may be a moot point by then!)

My opposition to the speed limit started back in the days of HB162 based upon my feeling that it was unjust to penalize all GFBL operators for the misbehavior of a few Captain Bonehead types.

The Bear Lover post that I quoted stating that the speed limit was intended to get GFBLs off the lake and naming my type of boat (cruisers) as the next target

solidified my opposition to the speed limit; that opposition has been reinforced by the numerous posts along the same lines made by various forum members.

It would be nice to be able to believe that this legislation really is about safety rather than about an attempt by shorefront property owners to dictate who gets to use the lake. Who knows, maybe one of us actually does have a chance of convincing the other....

Silver Duck

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-15-2008, 10:56 PM

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. .

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

codeman671 · 04-16-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

ApS · 04-16-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed...?

Since the USCG makes no speed determinations from waters where they have no jurisdiction, the USCG relies on the reports of mostly part-time Winnipesaukee officers. However, nobody's seen any determination of the speed at which Winnipesaukee's Eagle Island crash occurred, as one example.

Who would find "THE FACT" of excessive speeds on Winnipesaukee where no speeds are ever determined?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine

) ..."

Every weekend boater—willing or not—participates in some way in a Poker Run. One might empathize with this Winnipesaukee bass fisherman on one Poker Run weekend.

In 2007, it was nice to see that Donzi finally filed the required NHMP permit after years of "fun".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

"...1) Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question..."

The oldest brother's body was found; however, as in so many other cases, a determination of alcohol's metabolites was never announced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

"...2). Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense..."

Thanks, but what the request was, "What would those three brothers be telling us about a 'Need for Speed' on Winnipesaukee's protected inland waters?" (Where they could endanger more boaters, and boat even faster than they did).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

"...Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power..."

Is the special training available to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (Yes).

Is the special training required to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (No).

Three brothers lost to the thrill of speed together is an especially tragic loss—I can't readily dismiss it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that. What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe..."

What was the speed of the Rattlesnake Island crash? The fatality in Tuftonboro collision? The Parker Island crash? The Camp Island crash? The fatality off Parker Island of a seasoned boat mechanic? The upside-down crash into a cottage that took three lives? The most recent Long Lake collision? The kayak collision?

Answer: Nobody knows—not the NHMP and, most famously, not the Coast Guard itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way..."

Sorry, I've never heard of Wharton. (Sure sounds important, though).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat..."

Mine was a "real" prototype: think of a Jet-Ski only 18" high, but with a tunnel-hull underside. Here's what the tunnel-hull design looks like underneath.

However, a wake overwhelmed me on its first outing. (And how I discovered that a 6-gallon gas tank can be a floatation device!) As a 17-year-old—and not yet a high school graduate—I could only afford a 15-HP outboard. (And it was second-hand).

Since then, it's always been closed-course speeds for my thrills: the option of being extracted trying to "crawl away" from a collision has always been more appealing than trying to "keep from drowning".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance..."

I don't have the disposable income that would permit me a REAL toy that even some local governments can't afford. I also don't have the disposable income that would permit me to pay an annual five-figure insurance premium: I'm one of those "lesser" boaters, with one of those "lesser" credit ratings.

I should own a 20' Bayliner, I guess.

chmeeee · 04-16-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Second, if you look at the stats a few things become clear.

Operator inattention and careless, reckless are the 2 top reasons for an accident. Most accidents are from open motorboats, and collision with another vessels being a predominant accident. I wonder why sailboats are so far down the list................maybe because they are going so slow? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

Speed is number 3 on the list. No kidding. The first mistake is lack of care regardless of speed HOWEVER slower speeds gives everyone more time to handle those mistakes and we all make mistakes. Slower just gives us more time to deal with those errors.

Cal · 04-16-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor.

BI knows this. He can't be THAT stupid. He just uses a partial truth from the Coast Guard to spin in his direction. And here's some laughing faces for you

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

KonaChick · 04-16-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

codeman671 · 04-16-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Sure. To the exact MPH? NO, because it would be almost impossible unless someone was watching with a radar gun when it happened.

• In 2006 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed of over 30 mph . . . this is for the entire year and includes all 970 lakes/ponds and over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams.

• During the entire year of 2007 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 40 mph. There was 1 accident in 2007 that involved a speed of < 30 mph whereby an operator of a personal water craft (PWC) fell off and his craft struck another PWC.

• We hadn’t had a single boat collision fatality in New Hampshire for over 4 years. There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007.

Somewhere on the forum there is an exact list of incidents from last year, I do not remember who posted it, but I am sure someone will chime in.

chipj29 · 04-16-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Bingo!!!

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

The is plenty of data, many accidents. However the opponents live in a river in Egypt and will explain away every accident.

Single boats accidents don't count

Accident before mandatory certification don't count

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't count

If alcohol has involved it doesn't count

Accident on another lake don't count

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't count

Accidents before (pick a date) don't count

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.

chipj29 · 04-16-2008, 11:12 AM

The only accidents that should count are the ones in which speed (over 45 mph) was a major contributing factor. Period.

With that said, how many have there been?

hazelnut · 04-16-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The is plenty of data, many accidents.

Single boats accidents don't count Says who?

Accident before mandatory certification don't countAgain Says who?

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't countLike 47 MPH?

If alcohol has involved it doesn't countSo explain why it SHOULD count if Alcohol was present?

Accident on another lake don't countThe law on the table is specific to Winni

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't countThis is a funny one. Yeah ummmm do I even need to go there?

Accidents before (pick a date) don't countSaid Who?

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.Again if a kid is illegally driving a boat I'm SURE he'd obey the laws.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.Does that lake have a speed limit?

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.You just can't seem to work that one out in your head can you? Excessive speed could have been a 20MPH collision with a dock? Above wake in a no wake? It just kills you to even consider that doesn't it

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.You are right about one thing this post was comical. I know I laughed when I read it.

Comments are in red.

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 11:45 AM

Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped.

Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality.

Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count.

That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

Lakegeezer · 04-16-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

Resident 2B · 04-16-2008, 12:07 PM

The pro-speed limit "few" keeps spinning things and posting things that are just plain not happening here.

We have a great rule with respect to safety: the 150' rule.

Things happening outside of NH, all in places without the 150' rule, just plain do not count. It is an entirely different boating environment! The 150" rule works. Enforce what we have.

Our law makers had great in-sight when they created the 150' rule. It makes things safer than it is in all other areas without this wonderful rule.

I liked yesterday's ideas about restricted zones around camps. That helps more people enjoy the lake and adds value to safety of the children. I fully support this proposal.

Today, we are back to the same-old, same-old. I guess the pro-speed limit "few" have figured out that their effort to get certain boat types off the lake is not supported with this thinking.

The pro-speed limit "few" are only trying to impose their will on the rest of the NH boating public and they will continue to stoop to the lowest levels to spin their agenda. This agenda includes removal of all fast boats and all cruisers.

After the speed limit will come wake sizes and/or HP restrictions. Trust me!! This is only "step one" in a well planned agenda designed to get all the vessel types they do not like off the lake. They will stoop to whatever it takes to do this.

Boaters Beware!

R2B

Airwaves · 04-16-2008, 01:11 PM

Why are opponents to this bill falling into the trap of trying to defend how safe Lake Winnipesaukee already is? Anyone who cares to read the NEW HAMPSHIRE boating stats from either the NH Marine Patrol or the US Coast Guard can see that is is a very safe lake.

As I pointed out in my post #510 (it tended to disappear between the lag time and APS' entertaining picture posts) I put forward this argument;

I submit that speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will have the exact opposite effect and make the lake less safe!

In my local paper last night an editorial suggests that New Hampshire's budget deficit could be $200,000,000! A much higher figure than the one that I had heard and used.

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 03:07 PM

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

chmeeee · 04-16-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.

I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 03:58 PM

JD eere

That IS a classic. If we could get all those slower boats to go faster, think how safe the lake would be then!

I could be all wrong about a horsepower limit, we need a horsepower MINIMUM. If we restrict the lake to over 300 HP we will never have an accident again.

Then again...... slower is safer

KonaChick · 04-16-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed?

(btw love the jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...it reminds me of my kids when they are irritated with me!!)

Seeker · 04-16-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

Resident 2B · 04-16-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question.

R2B

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question.

R2B

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

JDeere · 04-16-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.

I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

Well maybe you got me. Not worth the time to go find something to argue the point. If your stats are correct I assume there is a correlation to airbags, seat belts etc...............

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.

Evenstar · 04-16-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

From my experience, more than an "occasional" boat travels over 45 mph on the lake, and some boats travel much faster than 45mph.

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-16-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

Bear,
The problem is, it was my question. If you have your own I am sure you would be pleased to ask it.
I am very very sincere. If the argument for the speed limit is because some don't feel "safe" than it is a legitimate question. Your response is why I felt the need to be specific. If we need to give up a freedom for a smaller group, it is fair to weigh the benefits vs cost.

If a kyacker wanted to answer my question with "yes I would feel safe" it would say something. Your response also says a lot.

Often we have little choice but to settle for a little less freedom but we can try to understand the reason with more explanation than "because I said so".

Resident 2B · 04-16-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

Bear Islander · 04-16-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

Lakegeezer · 04-17-2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-17-2008, 06:18 AM

Alleged facts repeated over and over again do NOT make them true or more true. A Bear Islander tactic: responded to me by asking me a question then a few messages later, to "save me the time", he answers the question himself, his way.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que - Post #414 (as quoted by BI):
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg #416

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

Bear Islander answering for me with what he wants us to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg 419

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

That is all Bear Islander can come up with in desperation (in my name). Here's more info than we need however it is proof of NH speed regulations. I can come up with these without BI's kind assistance. I apologize to forum readers for the length of this post and have made a few notes about skimming or jumping over certain boring parts.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2-a
270-D:2-a Boaters Guide. – The department of safety, division of safety services, shall publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

From the State mandated Safe Boating handbook guide:
Handbook - safe speed and distance: http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/meet.htm

Boating Basics: On the Water

Safe navigation on New Hampshire waterways is everyone's responsibility. All operators are equally responsible for taking action necessary to avoid collisions.

Encountering Other Vessels

Even though no vessel has the "right-of-way" over another vessel, there are some rules that every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take the action needed to avoid a collision. The navigation rules page shows what to do when encountering another vessel.

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

----------------------

Some have claimed that the required handbook is not always correct. And maybe BI can claim that "safe speed" does not look like "reasonable speed". So I present more boating speed rules from the New Hampshire General Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Speed on Lake:
The page: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-2.htm

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
I. Vessels shall be operated at headway speed only, while passing under all bridges.
II. (a) It shall be the duty of each vessel to keep to the right when vessels are approaching each other head on.
(b) When the courses of vessels are so far to the starboard of each other as not to be considered as approaching head on, they shall keep to the left.
III. When vessels are crossing courses or approaching each other in an oblique direction which may involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on its starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other, allowing the latter vessel to keep its course and speed.
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants. No person operating a vessel shall abruptly change its course without first determining that it can safely be done without crossing immediately ahead of another vessel.
V. If, when vessels are approaching each other, either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other from any cause, such vessel or vessels shall immediately slow to a speed barely sufficient for steerage until the vessels have safely passed each other. If it appears the danger of collision is imminent both vessels shall stop or reverse and not proceed until such danger has been averted.
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.
(c) The operator of a towing boat shall be responsible for compliance with this paragraph.
(d) The requirements of RSA 270-D:2, VI(a)(3) shall not apply to a vessel in the waters of the Androscoggin River from the Errol Dam to Umbagog Lake or in the waters of the Magalloway River within the state of New Hampshire.
VI-a. [Repealed.]
VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit.
VIII. When a vessel is required to keep out of the way of another, it shall, if necessary, slacken its speed, stop, or reverse, and avoid crossing ahead of any other vessel.
IX. Canoes, rowboats and sailboats shall be given the right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to allow deliberate impediment of motorboats by canoes, rowboats or sailboats.

Source. 1990, 171:1. 1994, 78:1. 1995, 191:2, eff. June 1, 1997; 191:3, eff. Dec. 31, 1998. 2002, 272:13, eff. May 18, 2002.

--------------------

The next batch of speed rules for the lake get to be pretty boring to read. You may want to skim down past all the “no wake zone” speed restrictions to PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES for other NH boat speed rules

Saf-C 402.88 Lake Winnipesaukee.

(a) That part of Paugus Bay between the buoy located 250 feet from the west side of the bay to the western-most black top buoy shall be a "no wake" area.

(b) The Weirs Channel, so-called, between the light buoy in said channel near the Endicott Rock in Lake Winnipesaukee, and the southernmost light buoy in the channel in Lake Paugus shall be a "no wake" area.

(c) That part of Alton Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee lying south of the line running east and west through the bandstand shall be a "no wake" area. Commercial vessels operating in this area shall pass on the east side of the bandstand.

(d) Between the red top buoy located by light buoy #23 and Sandy Point in Alton Bay shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(e) That portion of Lake Winnipesaukee known as Sally's Gut from the easternmost to the westernmost buoys marking this passage shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(f) From the red and white buoy situated off the southeasterly portion of Locke's Island in Lake Winnipesaukee to a point 600 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(g) From the red and white buoy at the entrance of Smith's Cove at Glendale and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(h) The channel between Loon Island and the mainland in the town of Meredith from the red buoy situated off the southeast portion of Loon Island to a point 400 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(i) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Varney and Kenniston Islands from the black and white buoy marking the southeast entrance to the red buoy marking the northwest entrance of the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(j) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Pine Island and Meredith Neck between the black and white buoy and the red buoy marking the northerly and southerly entrances respectively shall be a "no wake" area.

(k) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Horse Island and Meredith Neck, between the red buoy on the southerly approach and the black and white buoy at the northeasterly approach to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(l) Between navigation light number 69 and Governor's Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(m) From the entrance to Minge Cove at West Alton to the flashing light buoy located within the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(n) From the flashing light buoy in Minge Cove and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(o) Between Chase Island and Farm Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(p) In the cove on the southwesterly side of Governor's Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(q) From the no wake sign located at the southern entrance to Fish Cove to the northernmost point of the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(r) From the northernmost black top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the southernmost point of the channel between Three Mile Island and the Hawk's Nest shall be a "no wake" area.

(s) From 150 feet beyond the northwest end of the Beaver Island Channel to 150 feet beyond the southeastern end of the Beaver Island Channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(t) From a point 150 feet from the west side of the Black Cat Island Bridge to a point 150 feet of the eastern side of the Black Cat Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(u) From a point 150 feet from the southwesternmost red top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the northernmost red top buoy between Mark Island and Mink Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(v) From the red top buoy at the entrance of Glidden Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(w) From light buoy #75 to the southernmost point of Small's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(x) From light buoy #79 to the southeasternmost point of Robert's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(y) From a point 150 feet southeast of the Basin Bridge to a point 150 feet northwest of the Basin Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a "no wake" area.

(aa) From the red top buoy located on the south side of Whaleback Island to a point 150 feet beyond the north entrance to the channel between Whaleback Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ab) From a point 150 feet from the southeastern entrance of the channel between Ganzey Island and the mainland to a point 150 feet beyond the northern entrance to the same channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(ac) From a point 150 feet east of the black top buoy located off the north side of 9 Acre Island to a point 150 feet beyond the southwestern entrance of the channel between 9 Acre Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ad) From the westernmost black top buoy located off the Long Island Public Beach to a point 150 feet beyond the eastern side of the Long Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(ae) From light buoy #65 to the red top buoy located on the northeast side of Devens Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(af) From the southwesternmost red top buoy to the northeasternmost red top buoy located southwest of Hermit Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ag) From the southernmost black top buoy to the northernmost black top buoy in Salmon Meadow Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ah) From the no wake sign which is located on the southeast entrance to Kelly Cove to the northwesternmost point of Kelly Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ai) From a point 150 feet northeast of the no wake sign located at the entrance to Gilford Marina and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(aj) From a point 150 feet north of the entrance of Lake Shore Park and southerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(ak) From a point 150 feet easterly of the channel markers marking the entrance to Duck Trap Cove and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(al) From a point 150 feet southwest of the channel between Farm Island and Tuftonboro to a point 150 feet northeast of the entrance to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(am) From the no wake sign located on the eastern side of Shep Brown's Boat Basin and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(an) The cove portion of Lake Winnipesaukee west of Black Island, between Geneva Point Center and Black Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ao) From a point 150 feet south of Ledge Island and proceeding northward into Fish Cove shall be a "no wake" area. This "no wake" area shall not include the interior of the unnamed cove to the east of Fish Cove.

(ap) The area 150 feet north of the Bear Island mail dock to 150 feet south of the mail dock in the channel between the Bear Island Post Office and Pine Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(aq) Hanson Cove in Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area, including that area between the mouth of the cove, 150 yards due west of the large rock, to the large rock's corresponding black top navigational marker near Toltec Point.

(ar) That portion of Langley Cove in Paugus Bay, beginning from the city of Laconia Tax Map 69, Block 248, Lot 6 and running westerly to the western most point of Christmas Island in Paugus Bay, shall be a "no wake" area.

(as) The unnamed cove easterly of Light 41 on Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro, shall be a "no wake" area.

(at) Raoul’s Cove in the town of Moultonborough, from a line drawn beginning on the northern side of Lot 35 and the southern boundary of adjacent lot 33, proceeding across the cove to a point on the northern most side of Lot 91 and the southern boundary of adjacent Lot 92 on Moultonborough tax map #32 shall be a "no wake" area.

(au) That part of Meredith bay in Lake Winnipesaukee running from an imaginary straight line as drawn from the Town of Meredith Tax Map U-2, Lot 7 southern boundary to Map U-15, Lot 48A southern boundary, to the northerly end of the bay on Route 25 shall be a "no wake" area.

(av) The channel named Eagle Island Narrows between Egle Island and Governors Island on Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 402.75), amd by #8614, eff 4-25-06

----------------------------------

PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.01 Operating in Fog.

(a) When vessels are running in a fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rain storm, or when vessels cannot see each other, it shall be the duty of the pilot to cause a long blast, 4 to 6 seconds in duration, of the whistle or horn to be sounded at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes.

(b) A vessel hearing the fog signal of another vessel, apparently forward of the beam, the position of which is not ascertained, shall immediately slow to headway speed only, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over.

----------------
Saf-C 404.04 Meeting or Passing Log Rafts. All vessels when meeting or passing rafts or logs being towed shall, during such meeting or passing, reduce their speed to such an extent as to prevent their wake from causing logs to break away or washing out of the raft or boom.

-----------

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:

(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;

(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;

(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and

(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

(d) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Water events as set forth in RSA 270-D:4 and Saf-C 413; and

(2) Law enforcement agencies and their representatives acting in their official capacity.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 404.11)

---------------------------------

Saf-C 405.04 Regulatory Markers. Regulatory markers shall be geometric figures painted international orange and white. They shall indicate the existence of danger, speed zones, swim areas and other controls. Spelled-out words or recognized abbreviations may appear on these markers to convey their meaning to the operators of vessels.

------------------------------------
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander to Skipper of the Sea Que

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

Over DONE - have a nice day now.

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 07:05 AM

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!

It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

You can highlight every time the words "No Wake" appears in the regulations but they are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

JDeere · 04-17-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Based on my personal experience on the lake I have not found there to be a difference between bonehead moves of boaters of fast or slow boats. I have seen a performance boat sink because it was taking high speed turns and he lost control. I have seen a performance boat create a wake then go over it to catch some air. I was in a cove and although the boat was 200 feet away I got out of there as fast as I could. because one mistake on his part and I became a statistic. I also had a very close call when an idiot did a 180 and turned directly toward my boat. I have always thanked God that he was only going 30 mph or so because any faster and I could not have gotten out of his way He missed my by 2 or 3 feet! (MP charged him with reckless endangerment)

I once was trolling near Welsh Island and it was just after sunrise. I saw a boat traveling at a high speed coming directly in my path. As he approached I was wondering if I should jump off the boat. He passed within 30 feet at 60 mph+++. As he passed me he gave a me a warm one fingered wave. I must have annoyed him somehow. Damn those fisherman. It is those types that have created a legitimate fear in boaters.

I firmly believe that anyone who has spent enough hours on the lake understands the problem and slower will HELP make things safer for EVERYONE to enjoy the lake.................oops I guess everyone who is happy traveling at 45 mph or less but that is almost all of us!

Islander · 04-17-2008, 07:37 AM

The skipper may not understand what we are talking about when we say reasonable speed law.

A reasonable speed law is a speed limit without a specific number. Instead of saying 45 day 25 night the law says that a boats speed must be reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions. Or other word to that effect.

ApS · 04-17-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend..."

A "similar graph" takes just 0.28 seconds: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...33_NH_2006.htm

Among the 50 states, NH is a tiny sampling and subject to extreme statistical peaks and valleys.

In NH, most alcohol-related roadway fatalities occur in counties contiguous with Massachusetts. The majority of fatalities occur "departing the roadway"—hardly an Interstate issue.

Among boaters, where seatbelt compliance and airbags are irrelevent, this is a non-starter.

Commodore · 04-17-2008, 08:12 AM

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

Once again, none of them are a reasonable speed law, not even close. Perhaps, as Islander points out, there are those that do not understand the term. More likely they are grasping at straws.

I notice that the Commodore only posted the first part of Saf-C 404.12 He could not post the entire thing because the rest does not help his argument. He even adds his own comment in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the rule.

Woodsy · 04-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee...

Instead of everybody working together for real and meaningful changes that will appease everybody... (like the "Camp Zone" idea) and perhaps a few more No Wake Zones in selected areas, maybe even a nighttime speed limit.
WINNCRABS have chosen to pursue a 45/25 speed limit. Something I view as an unreasonable restriction on my liberty. A speed limit that will ultimately prove unenforceable for many reasons. Those of you who attended the meeting in Franklin and witnessed the NHMP testimony know the NHMP testified that while the radar units worked in a few certain situations, meeting the burden of proof in a court of law and the cost of operation was a concern. But I digress...

The reality of the speed limit is far more sinister!

BI, Islander, JDeere, Evenstar, FLL and the rest of WINNCRABS have an agenda, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it publicly. The sad part is, that while they wave the flag of safety, the agenda has absolutely nothing to do with safety... just ask Rep. Pilliod the original sponsor of HB-162! I have the message he left on MY answering machine where he SPECIFICALLY states "IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!!"

The WINNCRABS agenda is to change the lake to THIER liking by ELIMINATING those who THEY consider undesireables... hi-performance boats first.... followed by the cruisers (told ya so) then the PWC's after that!

Unfortunately, WINNCRABS have no safety statistics or data to support thier need for a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, so they resort to using other states & lakes as examples.... all the while never having boated there! In fact none of the states & lakes they use as examples have a 150' Safe Passage Rule. It is this 150' rule that keeps NH unique among the the other 50 states. It also keeps our boat to boat collisions to a minimum.

WINNCRABS dismiss the speed study done by the NHMP as useless because it didnt fit in with thier agenda. No doubt if the study had shown a different result they would be raving about it! The study conclusively shows that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake Winnipesaukee has a long and storied love affair with hi-performance boats. To be sure there have been some accidents, and no doubt there have been a few Boneheads behind the wheel too. Overall the boating safety record on Lake Winnipesaukee is exemplary. The NHMP yearly safety report supports this.

NH should follow the existing law so often quoted by Evenstar and work towards making Lake Winnipesaukee INVITING to everyone, from the Hi-Performance boater to the canoeist/kayaker. Boat registrations will no doubt be down for the next few years with gas approaching $4/gal. This will also result in a smaller budget for NHMP. The first to feel the pinch of high fuel costs will be the daytripper family boater in the small runabout. They will be the first to severely limit thier trips or just not use it thier boat altogether. Next to feel the pinch are the average folks with camps and property around the lake... between the property taxes, fuel costs and the overall crappy state of the economy, thier boating will no doubt be severely limited. I know of several families that have thier boat for sale and have no plans to use it this summer. If HB-847 passes the next to go will be the hi-perfomance boats. As an example, there probably wont be a Donzi Poker Run if there is a 45MPH speed limit. While some of you think thats just dandy, thats 30 boats and about 100 people that won't travel to the lake and spend thier $$$ on food and lodging. (not to mention how much $$$ us local guys spend that weekend) If the local hi-performance guys don't feel welcome anymore, they will just trade in thier big $$$ hi-po boats on big $$$ cruisers. This trades one problem for another... more cruisers = more wakes! If the WINNCRABS agenda continues unabated, and they somehow manage to make the big cruiser folks and the PWC's feel unwelcome... Then then who is left to patronize the businesses around the lake that depend so much on the boating economy? What happens when Rusty Mclear can't blame the hi-performance boater for his lack of room bookings or boat rentals?

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

JDeere · 04-17-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

parrothead · 04-17-2008, 10:53 AM

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

codeman671 · 04-17-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam? I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

hazelnut · 04-17-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

This law will address the fact that slower is safer. I am also in favor of increased education and enforcement. Must it be one or the other? Why not all three?

The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE. However if you wish to start a movement along those lines I am with you. We need to tilt at windmills now and then.

You are correct, I am settling for an imperfect solution. However imperfect is better than nothing.

Where is that one word answer you owe me?

SIKSUKR · 04-17-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.
.

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

hazelnut · 04-17-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped.

Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality.

Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count.

That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

Answer = NO!

Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

ApS · 04-17-2008, 12:57 PM

Hazelnut...(Now that THAT's settled...)

What effect did this have on the study?

Quote:

LACONIA –
"Marine Patrol officers armed with radar guns have begun clocking boat speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee...

"Officers won't pull over boats until Aug. 1 when a pilot boating speed enforcement program takes full effect. As of yesterday, officers will be testing the radar and collecting speed information in six spots...

"Former Safety Commissioner Richard Flynn offered the pilot speed limit as an alternative that might help lawmakers gauge whether they should pursue a limit.

"Safety Services Director Dave Barrett said his officers are ready to enforce a temporary speed limit on Winnipesaukee..."

From the state's largest newspaper:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...f-a1eb92561e49

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Answer = NO!

Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So we agree there is a problem of congestion, and dangerous behavior right?

Let's simplify the debate even further:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No

My answer = NO!

....

...

...

hazelnut · 04-17-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

.... Is that the rules? So sorry I forgot.

NO!

GWC... · 04-17-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Resident 2B · 04-17-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Answer = NO!

Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

ApS · 04-17-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

Type...type...type...type...type...fix...type...fi x...type...type...fix...!

Quote:

"...It's really sad how speed has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

There!—It's fixed!

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

Resident 2B · 04-17-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

BI,

You are 100% incorrect with that assumption.

I like everyone! I even like those who do not agree with me.

What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have. I really think buying or trying to buy a law that discriminates against a particular sub-class is un-American. I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists.

So, it is possible for me to like someone, but to dislike what they are doing in certain circumstances.

Your friend for life,

R2B

Bear Islander · 04-17-2008, 09:10 PM

I agree completely.

Resident 2B · 04-17-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York?

I did not realize this.

R2B

Bear Islander · 04-18-2008, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York?

I did not realize this.

R2B

Now you know!

Bear Islander · 04-18-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

No, the speed limit is not Woodsy's fault.

It's Woodsy's fault there was no compromise solution, like one with an exception for the broads.

ApS · 04-18-2008, 08:09 AM

Rose, I was initially stumped by your earlier question—and since nobody has answered it yet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose

"...Why don't you support a limit on the NUMBER of watercraft (of any type) allowed on the lake...?"

By its very nature, HB-847 will "skim" those serially impaired, those most seriously impaired, those with sociopathic behaviors—plus, the largest, the heaviest, the fastest, and the most dangerous boats we face today...will leave Lake Winnipesaukee's waters.

Those boaters become another lake's problem: I suggest Long Lake and Ossipee Lake take up the slack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

"...An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers..."

'Better check that again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveg

"...I have never had a "close encounter" with a speeding boat..."

Your boat is probably equipped with an engine...

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding...!"

And if he's weaving? He's over the limit—AND speeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

With the economy the way it is and appears to be heading plus the cost of gas, maybe the overcrowding issue will soon be a non-issue.

I personally don't see the lake as overcrowded; unfortunately, there are some boats that use up more of the lake than others.

We may see a resurgence of sail on the lake: Sailboat manufacturers are crying "poor" too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake..??"

It prevents dozens of "mistakes".

Every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

"...What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have...

In many cases, it only takes a fraction of a million dollars to "force their desires" on us lesser boaters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam...?" I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

Many owners will die before selling out.

We desire the "by natural causes" route, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847..."

A decline we can LIVE with.

GWC... · 04-18-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Evenstar · 04-18-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

Question: How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee? Reminder...

GWC, I really don’t get why you feel that it is perfectly right to quote me out of context numerous times, by dredging up posts that I made over 3 years ago!

I don’t even get why you even used most of those quotes, since you didn’t even bother to comment on most of them.

If this is just another one of your lame attempts to discredit me on a public forum (which is such a cowardly act) why don’t you be a man, borrow a kayak, and try to follow me out on the main lake some time. I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Now it’s my turn to add the stuff you conveniently left out:

1.) With a kayak, being tipped over by a wake is not the same as being swamped by one. Swamping is when you take on water. On that particular occasion, we took on enough water that we had to paddle to a nearby island and bail out.

2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak.

In answer to your question: My friend and I have only paddled sea kayaks on Winni – so we’ve never really been swamped while kayaking there (some water from waves and wakes has entered our cockpits, but not enough to be what I would call “swamped.” We’ve never had to pump out our sea kayaks.)

Happy? And my statement that “I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat” is completely true.

3.) I have never suggested that I a speed limit will solve all the problems or that one will make any lake feel totally safe, from all power boaters, 100% of the time. When you’re in a kayak and a powerboat is heading directly at you – you always wonder if the operator sees you. Many don’t, until they get fairly close, but others are just intentionally trying to scare us, and often succeed in doing so.

Just because some boaters violate current laws does not mean that we don’t need a lake speed limit. I have also stated many times (although not in these exact words) that an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph.

Now why don’t you get a life, or at leastr take up a hobby or something.

Airwaves · 04-19-2008, 10:06 PM

It's abundantly clear to everyone that we are at an impass. So as my final post I will try one last time to show the supporters of the solution in search of a problem, why their solution will create a potentially dangerous problem

As Bear Islander wrote in post#541

Quote:

The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.

He is 100% correct. Now here is where his logic goes off track

Quote:

The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE.

Okay, so he's agreed that the 150 foot rule is hard to enforce, and he's agreed that money is an issue.

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!

What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?

DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!

If this bill becomes law I will remind all of the speed limit supporters when an incident happens because Lake Winnipesaukee's Marine Patrol was pointing radar guns trying to catch the .09% of boats exceeding 45 MPH.

Believe it!

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-20-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg # 530

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander, msg #530

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-20-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Really? You must have been reading too fast to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar msg 346 to Airwaves,

{snip} 2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak. {snip} an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph. {snip} Now why don’t you get a life, or at least take up a hobby or something.

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades. How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

BTW, my boat can only go get to 40 mph DOWNHILL

.

Bear Islander · 04-20-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.

Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-20-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg #548

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!
It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

Non-responsive? You must not read some of your own posts. To the point: Operating at an unreasonable speed is unsafe. That makes it illegal by law. To promote the idea that unsafe speed is “reasonable” is irresponsible. So reasonable speed is addressed by the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saf-C 404.12 (c)

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including: {snip}

Unreasonable speed is unsafe. Unsafe (speed) is illegal or unlawful. It follows that unreasonable speed is illegal. To think otherwise is quite foolish.

A great example of Bear Islander misdirection is his response to The Commodore’s message #552. Follow this one regarding Saf-C 404.12.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg #553

I notice that the Commodore only posted the first part of Saf-C 404.12 He could not post the entire thing because the rest does not help his argument. He even adds his own comment in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the rule.

Sounds like a conniving omission the way Bear Islander explains it. His “trick” here is: he is right about the rest of 404.12 not a big help to the immediate discussion nor does it hurt the position - however. nothing in 404.12 helps BI’s cause either so he spins it, misdirects readers and distracts us from the facts!. Read 404.12 yourself in (lengthy) message #547 or The Commodore‘s edited version in msg #552 along with a few comments he made, in a completely different font, that BI tries to discredit. Does Bear Islander really think that the law would include this sentence? Quote from Msg 552: “Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.” Ya think intelligent people would believe that the name “Mr Islander” and the comments in a different font are tricks and pretend to be part of the law?

I am attacking what? Statements and alleged fact. As for putting things in the mouths of others - That's what you seem to do.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-20-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg 548

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

No, they are laws that require reasonable speeds.

You have been concerned about errors of omission but you conveniently omit that which does not help your position. For instance.
You dismiss the boating handbook but you do NOT mention the FULL TITLE and description of that required publication. It is the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. A few boating responsibilities may not be specifically written in the law but that does not detract from the fact that they are boating responsibilities as published and distributed by the State of NH. Irresponsible operation is illegal regardless of speed. To suggest that the NH Boating Handbook advises or authorizes anything irresponsible is ludicrous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the Handbook of boating laws and responsibilities chapter Boating Basics: On the Water

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

Maintain a safe speed and distance. Does that mean a “Reasonable Speed” or an Unreasonable speed? Is this not a reasonable speed requirement? Yet there is the false claim that NH does not address reasonable speed.

The State of NH is mandated to publish this handbook: Section 270-D requires the division of safety services (the same dept as the Marine Patrol) to publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. In New Hampshire it is titled a the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. You may dismiss it because there may be a few instances where the Handbook describes boater responsibilities more strict than the written law. It is sponsored by Marine Patrol and distributed free to the boating public. Very few boaters will do further research into the chapters and sections of the laws and rules. A quote from the handbook: The handbook does not replace what is specifically legal for boating in New Hampshire, which is found in the New Hampshire Statutes and federal law. That is an important stipulation.

It should not take a rocket scientist or even a rocket rider to understand what this means. Within 150’ of most things it’s 6 m.p.h. or slower. What is this safe speed outside this 150’ radius you ask - it is one that is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions and not a one-size-fits-all magic number. If a vessel is not traveling at a safe speed and distance then it is obviously operating in an unsafe manner and is therefore illegal. If Bear Islander believes that those three basic rules of boater responsibilities are unreasonable then he has frozen a few too many brain cells.

Who has the better ability to decide what a reasonable speed is at any given time and lake condition? Would it be a politician sitting in a big room in Concord or a boat captain at the lake?

Evenstar · 04-20-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Really? You must have been reading too fast

to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have."

Ok so I have to make another post to defend myself yet again from another series of lame comments. You guys are getting really pathetic.

I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348 (so who isn't paying attention here): "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline." He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does.

Quote:

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

A sea kayak is a recreational vessel. So aren't white water kayaks, touring kayaks and recreational kayaks. I didn't make up these categories - that's just the way that kayaks are classified - by their design. A sea kayak is a long touring kayak.

Quote:

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades.

The number of boating years doesn't mean all that much. I've probably paddled more miles in NH lakes than most anyone on this forum. I've also run class II and III rapids, and am a collegiate sailor and a registered member of the Inter Collegiate Sailing Association. My sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. During the school year were out on the bay practicing 4 days a week, and compete all weekend. We also have team meetings each week - just to study the racing rules of sailing - plus morning workouts. So I probably have more actually real time in a non-motorized vessel and actual knowledge of non-motorized boats than most of you on this forum.

Quote:

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

Here we go again . . . This just shows how little most of you know about a sea kayak. And I never claimed to be a "professional." You don't wear a helmet on a sea kayak - helmets are for white water kayaking. If I added all the junk to my sea kayak - it would surely tip over in the first light breeze. Few of you could even sit in my kayak without tipping it over. Heck, most of you would never even fit in my kayak.

Quote:

How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

A speed limit is a pretty simple rule to follow - and the Marine Patrol would make sure that they followed it. What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

Challenging, answering or correcting allegations in a post is not rewriting it!

Who is attacking and putting things into the mouths of others? You have "answered for me" in a post (419) and here you tell the "opposition" what you claim they understand. I won't go into your style of attack that uses carefully chosen wording so it looks like an attack.

As for what I think on the subject of additional speed limits, it's been written and dismissed by you many times already. In short: More education, more enforcement of the current rules.

Bear Islander · 04-20-2008, 07:03 PM

Skipper,

I'm having trouble following your posts.

I support HB847 because I hope it will change the direction I see the lake going in. I don't believe it will "fix" the lake, just improve things a little bit.

I hope people on both sides of the issue show up at the hearing tomorrow and have their say where it really counts. I'd be there if I could.

TiltonBB · 04-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Skipper of the Sea Que has successfully and with ample facts and direct statements put Bear Islander on the mat. Only a fool would stand up and respond, only to take another punch.

B.I., I'm begging you, just admit you are wrong (and misguided) and go hide under Evenstar's kayak.

The freedom we all enjoy on the lake will be forever jeopardized if we have to constantly worry if our speedometers are accurate, or who is watching us. That freedom is one of the many things that makes operating a boat so much more enjoyable than driving a car.

[B]The speed limit remains a solution search of a problem and should be put to bed once and forever.[/B]

hazelnut · 04-20-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Skipper,

I'm having trouble following your posts.
I support HB847 because I hope it will change the direction I see the lake going in. I don't believe it will "fix" the lake, just improve things a little bit.
I hope people on both sides of the issue show up at the hearing tomorrow and have their say where it really counts. I'd be there if I could.

Are you sure about that. I feel that Skippers posts are incredibly well written and well thought out. I think he does a fantastic job dispelling the myth that you keep perpetuating that the current laws don't address reasonable speed. If the current laws were followed we would have no issues. Making new laws that people will continue to ignore does nothing.

Bravo Skipper nice series of posts.

Bear Islander · 04-20-2008, 07:23 PM

There is no reasonable speed law. You know it, I know it, Skipper knows it. If you go to the hearing, try and convince the Senators there is a reasonable speed law!

GWC... · 04-20-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

"Slower is safer", you say...

Guess a speed limit of 40 mph is not slower than a speed limit of 45 mph?!?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM

I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

One can only imagine what life on Winnipesaukee will entail with a speed limit greater than the speed limit on Squam.

Perhaps the Senate needs to amend the Bill to allow a charge for paddlers to use Lake Winnipesaukee, since it would seem that there will be a lot more paddlers with a false sense of safety and a busy MP, as a result of swampings.

jrc · 04-20-2008, 08:30 PM

Try to follow along. We already know that by rule any operation that is unsafe is illegal. So by using simple English the opposite of unsafe is safe, right? So only safe operation is legal right?

No comes the tricky part, is there a safe speed that is unreasonable? Nope, is there a un-safe speed that is reasonable? Nope, so in effect we have a reasonable speed law. You cannot legally travel at an unreasonable speed today.

Maybe you're right some politicians won't be able to follow.

We can of course do the same with the careless and negligent law.

To be honest, a reasonable and prudent law is really no change, it's redundant but I would not oppose it. It's the 45/25 portion of the law that is misguided and vindictive.

Bear Islander · 04-20-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Try to follow along. We already know that by rule any operation that is unsafe is illegal. So by using simple English the opposite of unsafe is safe, right? So only safe operation is legal right?

No comes the tricky part, is there a safe speed that is unreasonable? Nope, is there a un-safe speed that is reasonable? Nope, so in effect we have a reasonable speed law. You cannot legally travel at an unreasonable speed today.

Maybe you're right some politicians won't be able to follow.

We can of course do the same with the careless and negligent law.

To be honest, a reasonable and prudent law is really no change, it's redundant but I would not oppose it. It's the 45/25 portion of the law that is misguided and vindictive.

I understand the theory. We have a reckless driving law on our highways, why then do we need speed limits. In fact we can erase most of our highway laws and just keep reckless driving. Driving drunk is reckless, so we can eliminate the DUI statutes. NOT!

You can try and unscrew the inscrutable all day long but.... the is no reasonable and prudent boating speed law in NH.

Mashugana · 04-20-2008, 09:31 PM

Excellent work Skipper of the Sea Que. You didn't let Bear Islander's spins, spews and distractions get to you.

Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance.

I'll echo everything jrc, GWC, hazelnut and TiltonBB said in their recent posts.

Thank you Skipper.

Islander · 04-20-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Excellent work Skipper of the Sea Que. You didn't let Bear Islander's spins, spews and distractions get to you.

Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance.

I'll echo everything jrc, GWC, hazelnut and TiltonBB said in their recent posts.

Thank you Skipper.

You guys are priceless. Is this a comedy routine? Skipper posts several long rambling posts. Richard answered with a few sentences including wishing both sides luck at the hearing. And he is called to task for "spins, spews and distractions".

ApS · 04-21-2008, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...• There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007..."

News to me, and I could have witnessed this fatality from my living room. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed...?

Please advise us why a performance boat flying into a Winnipesaukee cottage, killing three, doesn't count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

Maine has "Reasonable and Prudent" written into their boating laws.

Long Lake users may be wishing for a 45/25. (Especially the 25 part).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?
All this time I thought he was against it.

Most of those opposed are their own worst enemy, even on shore. Who told us that, "Radar doesn't work on water"?

The first letter of commentary HERE is by "Moose" (not a member here).
Nobody has spammed boating and fishing sites like "Moose" but he states—h was for HB 847—before he was against it!

Quote:

"...I used to be in favor of a speed limit until I found out how many "Lakes Region" businesses say that not letting boats go really fast would hurt their business..."
—"Moose"

Look for "Moose" to be trying to convince NH Senators of his genuiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

"...I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists..."

I notice most of the Marine Trade Associations begin their remarks with, "We have not taken a position on this". (Of course, that is supposed to give them credibility).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!
What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?
DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!

Maybe in Massachusetts, they have "safety patrols". You don't want to be swamped, collided, or drowning in a New Hampshire lake. I'll go for days without seeing an MP on the lake—particularly on weekends. (Except when I call them—as I did when I saw two small boys in two small paddling boats roped together at dusk.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance..."

New Jersey requires a flag for water skiers and kayakers, but has a thoroughly-enforced 30-MPH limit on its premiere lake!

Do they know Cal?

Dave R says that kayaks are not difficult to see—and I agree.

Who's correct?

Sandy Beach · 04-21-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys are priceless. Is this a comedy routine? Skipper posts several long rambling posts. Richard answered with a few sentences including wishing both sides luck at the hearing. And he is called to task for "spins, spews and distractions".

I admire Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that were on the side against the 45/25 m.p.h. limits. They showed remarkable self control. The thread was started by Skip to point to a Speed Limit letter by a Marine Patrol official who was directly involved in the speed testing. Then followed a barrage of posts from pro 45/25 limit supporters championed by Bear Islander. They challenged the MP statements and a heated exchange of posts ensued.

You are spinning right now Islander. Your poor buddy (Richard) Bear Islander's last message and a small percentage of others were so sweet. That notwithstanding he had a heap of posts with gyroscopic spin. There was massive spewing, many distractions and misdirections. Bear Islander ignored numerous questions and statements. Many of his posts had an undertone of ill will and insulted some respondents IMO of course.

The funny part is you look at just one message. You think that erases all the others he has authored. He was not taken to task for his last post. Get real.

Reasonable speed limits are reasonable. 45 m.p.h. day and 25 m.p.h. at night in many cases is not reasonable.

My thanks to The Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that are against this bill.

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

Good job Skipper
Let the debate end.
Sandy

Skipper of the Sea Que · 04-21-2008, 08:17 AM

598 messages ago Skip started this thread. He posted a link to a letter in the Union Leader by Lt. Dunleavy of NH Marine Patrol speed data untainted responding to allegations critical of Marine Patrol regarding HB 847 (the 45/25 proposed speed limit). Just look at what we did with that thread and information.

Many thanks for the show of support from those who found my posts beneficial. The feedback is/was appreciated.

I am not used to or comfortable with the style of debate exhibited in this thread. We do not have to agree on everything but we can discuss it calmly, rationally, in a friendly manner and with a little bit of fun thrown in. This thread was not enjoyable in my eyes.

As a long time Forum member I have looked forward to checking out this web site as often as I can. Not so since this speed limit harangue. I come here to read about and sometimes talk with old (as in long time) and new forum friends to share information, ideas, thoughts, experiences and enjoy all that this web site has to offer. Not to be insulted or called names and etc..

As for Bear Islander. He has demonstrated a few things to me (at least 2) to use his words, he claims to be an "obnoxious smart ass". Click that for his complete post.

In that same post Bear Islander's summation says it all: "If I ever get the chance to put in a plug to a large audience you can bet the farm it will not be about speed limits on Winnipesaukee. In the great scheme of things, it's just not that important." Amen

Let's hope that this is over and done with soon so we can concentrate on the fun and friendly aspects of the best site on the web, Winnipesaukee.com

Happy and SAFE boating to all. Bring on summer.

Bear Islander · 04-21-2008, 05:25 PM

I am repeatedly accused of calling people names. Twice in recent posts. I would certainly be wrong if I did, but I don't think I have.

It's a perception thing, you don't like what I say, so I must be calling them names.

Islander · 04-21-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy Beach

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

I have! Why insinuate?

04-15-2008, 02:35 PM	#501
TiltonBB Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Gilford, NH and Florida Posts: 2,991 Thanks: 696 Thanked 2,196 Times in 931 Posts	Evevstar, Slower is safer? So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer? If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?" If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake? Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

04-15-2008, 04:22 PM	#507
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,357 Thanks: 994 Thanked 313 Times in 163 Posts	Coast Guard Rules vs. NH Rules I think many are missing an important point. In all bodies of water where the CG has gathered the data BI keeps pointing to, there is no 150' rule. So, any comparison to what is being proposed in NH were we have an existing 150' rule is completely bogus. Excessive speed in CG's assessment can be any speed deamed too fast for existing conditions. Without a 150' NWZ around every other vessel, boats in CG waters are often moving at 25 MPH or faster even when within 25' to 50' of each other. It is a much more dangerous situation than we have on the lake. If you do not believe me, go out of Boston Harbor some summer week day, not even on a weekend, and you will see many things, much faster and much closer that we ever see on the lake. This is within the outer harbor, from Deer Island inwards to Logan airport. We have a rule on the lake, the 150' rule, that works when enforced. The CG has no rule like it. Therefore, the boating environments are totally different and the data is not applicaple to this discussion. It is like comparing apples and watermelons! R2B

04-16-2008, 11:12 AM	#525
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	What does count? The only accidents that should count are the ones in which speed (over 45 mph) was a major contributing factor. Period. With that said, how many have there been?

04-16-2008, 12:07 PM	#529
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,357 Thanks: 994 Thanked 313 Times in 163 Posts	What is happening here in NH is all that counts The pro-speed limit "few" keeps spinning things and posting things that are just plain not happening here. We have a great rule with respect to safety: the 150' rule. Things happening outside of NH, all in places without the 150' rule, just plain do not count. It is an entirely different boating environment! The 150" rule works. Enforce what we have. Our law makers had great in-sight when they created the 150' rule. It makes things safer than it is in all other areas without this wonderful rule. I liked yesterday's ideas about restricted zones around camps. That helps more people enjoy the lake and adds value to safety of the children. I fully support this proposal. Today, we are back to the same-old, same-old. I guess the pro-speed limit "few" have figured out that their effort to get certain boat types off the lake is not supported with this thinking. The pro-speed limit "few" are only trying to impose their will on the rest of the NH boating public and they will continue to stoop to the lowest levels to spin their agenda. This agenda includes removal of all fast boats and all cruisers. After the speed limit will come wake sizes and/or HP restrictions. Trust me!! This is only "step one" in a well planned agenda designed to get all the vessel types they do not like off the lake. They will stoop to whatever it takes to do this. Boaters Beware! R2B

04-16-2008, 01:11 PM	#530
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	A thought for senators and opponents of the proposed law Why are opponents to this bill falling into the trap of trying to defend how safe Lake Winnipesaukee already is? Anyone who cares to read the NEW HAMPSHIRE boating stats from either the NH Marine Patrol or the US Coast Guard can see that is is a very safe lake. As I pointed out in my post #510 (it tended to disappear between the lag time and APS' entertaining picture posts) I put forward this argument; *I submit that speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will have the exact opposite effect and make the lake less safe!* In my local paper last night an editorial suggests that New Hampshire's budget deficit could be $200,000,000! A much higher figure than the one that I had heard and used.

04-15-2008, 07:23 PM	#511
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	Islander Since you do seem to have some sources for insight that I lack, I'd be quite interested in discussing the subject with you once the season gets rolling (though the way ice-out is going, it may be a moot point by then!) My opposition to the speed limit started back in the days of HB162 based upon my feeling that it was unjust to penalize all GFBL operators for the misbehavior of a few Captain Bonehead types. The Bear Lover post that I quoted stating that the speed limit was intended to get GFBLs off the lake and naming my type of boat (cruisers) as the next target solidified my opposition to the speed limit; that opposition has been reinforced by the numerous posts along the same lines made by various forum members. It would be nice to be able to believe that this legislation really is about safety rather than about an attempt by shorefront property owners to dictate who gets to use the lake. Who knows, maybe one of us actually does have a chance of convincing the other.... Silver Duck

04-15-2008, 10:56 PM	#512
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	Question for kayakers.... If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

04-16-2008, 11:45 AM	#527
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped. Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality. Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count. That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer. Is slower safer?

04-16-2008, 03:07 PM	#531
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer. Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence. Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

04-16-2008, 03:58 PM	#535
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	JD eere That IS a classic. If we could get all those slower boats to go faster, think how safe the lake would be then! I could be all wrong about a horsepower limit, we need a horsepower MINIMUM. If we restrict the lake to over 300 HP we will never have an accident again. Then again...... slower is safer

04-17-2008, 07:05 AM	#548
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post! It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen. There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire. You can highlight every time the words "No Wake" appears in the regulations but they are in no way a "reasonable speed law". Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law". The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

04-17-2008, 07:37 AM	#550
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	The skipper may not understand what we are talking about when we say reasonable speed law. A reasonable speed law is a speed limit without a specific number. Instead of saying 45 day 25 night the law says that a boats speed must be reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions. Or other word to that effect.

04-17-2008, 08:12 AM	#552
Commodore Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 45 Thanks: 8 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Great post Skipper. I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee. That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant. CHAPTER 270-D BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS Section 270-D:2 270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. – IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants. VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions. --------------------------------- PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels. (c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct: If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner. Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you. __________________ The Commodore

04-17-2008, 10:09 AM	#554
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,965 Thanks: 80 Thanked 979 Times in 440 Posts	It is all just part of the agenda.... Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee... Instead of everybody working together for real and meaningful changes that will appease everybody... (like the "Camp Zone" idea) and perhaps a few more No Wake Zones in selected areas, maybe even a nighttime speed limit. WINNCRABS have chosen to pursue a 45/25 speed limit. Something I view as an unreasonable restriction on my liberty. A speed limit that will ultimately prove unenforceable for many reasons. Those of you who attended the meeting in Franklin and witnessed the NHMP testimony know the NHMP testified that while the radar units worked in a few certain situations, meeting the burden of proof in a court of law and the cost of operation was a concern. But I digress... The reality of the speed limit is far more sinister! BI, Islander, JDeere, Evenstar, FLL and the rest of WINNCRABS have an agenda, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it publicly. The sad part is, that while they wave the flag of safety, the agenda has absolutely nothing to do with safety... just ask Rep. Pilliod the original sponsor of HB-162! I have the message he left on MY answering machine where he SPECIFICALLY states "IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!!" The WINNCRABS agenda is to change the lake to THIER liking by ELIMINATING those who THEY consider undesireables... hi-performance boats first.... followed by the cruisers (told ya so) then the PWC's after that! Unfortunately, WINNCRABS have no safety statistics or data to support thier need for a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, so they resort to using other states & lakes as examples.... all the while never having boated there! In fact none of the states & lakes they use as examples have a 150' Safe Passage Rule. It is this 150' rule that keeps NH unique among the the other 50 states. It also keeps our boat to boat collisions to a minimum. WINNCRABS dismiss the speed study done by the NHMP as useless because it didnt fit in with thier agenda. No doubt if the study had shown a different result they would be raving about it! The study conclusively shows that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. Lake Winnipesaukee has a long and storied love affair with hi-performance boats. To be sure there have been some accidents, and no doubt there have been a few Boneheads behind the wheel too. Overall the boating safety record on Lake Winnipesaukee is exemplary. The NHMP yearly safety report supports this. NH should follow the existing law so often quoted by Evenstar and work towards making Lake Winnipesaukee INVITING to everyone, from the Hi-Performance boater to the canoeist/kayaker. Boat registrations will no doubt be down for the next few years with gas approaching $4/gal. This will also result in a smaller budget for NHMP. The first to feel the pinch of high fuel costs will be the daytripper family boater in the small runabout. They will be the first to severely limit thier trips or just not use it thier boat altogether. Next to feel the pinch are the average folks with camps and property around the lake... between the property taxes, fuel costs and the overall crappy state of the economy, thier boating will no doubt be severely limited. I know of several families that have thier boat for sale and have no plans to use it this summer. If HB-847 passes the next to go will be the hi-perfomance boats. As an example, there probably wont be a Donzi Poker Run if there is a 45MPH speed limit. While some of you think thats just dandy, thats 30 boats and about 100 people that won't travel to the lake and spend thier $$$ on food and lodging. (not to mention how much $$$ us local guys spend that weekend) If the local hi-performance guys don't feel welcome anymore, they will just trade in thier big $$$ hi-po boats on big $$$ cruisers. This trades one problem for another... more cruisers = more wakes! If the WINNCRABS agenda continues unabated, and they somehow manage to make the big cruiser folks and the PWC's feel unwelcome... Then then who is left to patronize the businesses around the lake that depend so much on the boating economy? What happens when Rusty Mclear can't blame the hi-performance boater for his lack of room bookings or boat rentals? The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847... Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

04-17-2008, 10:53 AM	#556
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Wow WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit. Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones. The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community. Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

04-17-2008, 09:10 PM	#572
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	I agree completely.

04-20-2008, 07:03 PM	#587
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Skipper, I'm having trouble following your posts. I support HB847 because I hope it will change the direction I see the lake going in. I don't believe it will "fix" the lake, just improve things a little bit. I hope people on both sides of the issue show up at the hearing tomorrow and have their say where it really counts. I'd be there if I could.

04-20-2008, 07:05 PM	#588
TiltonBB Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Gilford, NH and Florida Posts: 2,991 Thanks: 696 Thanked 2,196 Times in 931 Posts	Nice Post Skipper!! Skipper of the Sea Que has successfully and with ample facts and direct statements put Bear Islander on the mat. Only a fool would stand up and respond, only to take another punch. B.I., I'm begging you, just admit you are wrong (and misguided) and go hide under Evenstar's kayak. The freedom we all enjoy on the lake will be forever jeopardized if we have to constantly worry if our speedometers are accurate, or who is watching us. That freedom is one of the many things that makes operating a boat so much more enjoyable than driving a car. [B]The speed limit remains a solution search of a problem and should be put to bed once and forever.[/B]

04-20-2008, 07:23 PM	#590
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	There is no reasonable speed law. You know it, I know it, Skipper knows it. If you go to the hearing, try and convince the Senators there is a reasonable speed law!

04-20-2008, 08:30 PM	#592
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Try to follow along. We already know that by rule any operation that is unsafe is illegal. So by using simple English the opposite of unsafe is safe, right? So only safe operation is legal right? No comes the tricky part, is there a safe speed that is unreasonable? Nope, is there a un-safe speed that is reasonable? Nope, so in effect we have a reasonable speed law. You cannot legally travel at an unreasonable speed today. Maybe you're right some politicians won't be able to follow. We can of course do the same with the careless and negligent law. To be honest, a reasonable and prudent law is really no change, it's redundant but I would not oppose it. It's the 45/25 portion of the law that is misguided and vindictive.

04-20-2008, 09:31 PM	#594
Mashugana Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 73 Thanks: 2 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Bear Islander and Co. myths busted Excellent work Skipper of the Sea Que. You didn't let Bear Islander's spins, spews and distractions get to you. Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance. I'll echo everything jrc, GWC, hazelnut and TiltonBB said in their recent posts. Thank you Skipper.

04-21-2008, 08:17 AM	#598
Skipper of the Sea Que Deceased Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence Posts: 573 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 32 Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts	Lt. Dunleavy's remarks in support of Marine Patrol 598 messages ago Skip started this thread. He posted a link to a letter in the Union Leader by Lt. Dunleavy of NH Marine Patrol speed data untainted responding to allegations critical of Marine Patrol regarding HB 847 (the 45/25 proposed speed limit). Just look at what we did with that thread and information. Many thanks for the show of support from those who found my posts beneficial. The feedback is/was appreciated. I am not used to or comfortable with the style of debate exhibited in this thread. We do not have to agree on everything but we can discuss it calmly, rationally, in a friendly manner and with a little bit of fun thrown in. This thread was not enjoyable in my eyes. As a long time Forum member I have looked forward to checking out this web site as often as I can. Not so since this speed limit harangue. I come here to read about and sometimes talk with old (as in long time) and new forum friends to share information, ideas, thoughts, experiences and enjoy all that this web site has to offer. Not to be insulted or called names and etc.. As for Bear Islander. He has demonstrated a few things to me (at least 2) to use his words, he claims to be an "obnoxious smart ass". Click that for his complete post. In that same post Bear Islander's summation says it all: "If I ever get the chance to put in a plug to a large audience you can bet the farm it will not be about speed limits on Winnipesaukee. In the great scheme of things, it's just not that important." Amen Let's hope that this is over and done with soon so we can concentrate on the fun and friendly aspects of the best site on the web, Winnipesaukee.com Happy and SAFE boating to all. Bring on summer. __________________ Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works. Shriners Hospitals *providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay*. Find out more or refer a patient.

04-21-2008, 05:25 PM	#599
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	I am repeatedly accused of calling people names. Twice in recent posts. I would certainly be wrong if I did, but I don't think I have. It's a perception thing, you don't like what I say, so I must be calling them names.