Life after speed limits

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Lake Winnipesaukee, and a potential speed limit is the discussion here.
And once again, I am sorry I didn't specify LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE when I asked the original question.

What happens on other lakes has NO bearing on what happens on this one. History somewhere else does not equal history here. Sorry.

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

So you admit that high speed fatalities are so rare that a sample size from any 1 lake is not statistically valid? By your logic we must then accumulate all high speed fatalities until we have a number large enough to make people take notice? A very odd logic path.

Winnipesaukee is not as large as the great lakes for example, but it is the only regional lake with enough surface area to safely support high speed (where I'll say high speed is > 60MPH) boat travel. Including regional lakes much smaller skews, rather than supports, the findings. You could most likely show that as lake surface area decreases, probability of fatal accidents increases for a given boat speed/size ratio. A 32' boat operating at 60MPH on Winnipesaukee poses no threat, provided that existing boating laws and regulations are being observed. The same boat at the same speed on Winnisquam is a moderate threat, and on little squam is an outright danger.

[codeman671]

I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard. My problem is that other than his THEORY that a speed limit may keep this type of boat off Winnipesaukee, a speed limit would not prevent the Long Lake accident from happening here.

No factual data exists that a speed limit would prevent this. It can happen on a street with speed limits and it happens more often than on the lake, why would a speed limit on the water prevent it? It wouldn't.

Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard..."

That's good, because your Senator will also consider events and laws in other jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change..."

Start with a 4½ ton boat....

[parrothead]

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward.
The definition of a wake from wikipedia is "a wake is the region of turbulence around a solid body moving relative to the water, caused by the flow of liquid around the body. The wake leading the body is caused by the compression of the liquid medium by the moving body, and is often called a bow wake when observed preceding a watercraft. As with all wave forms, it spreads outward from the source until its energy is overcome or lost, usually by friction or dispersion."

The engine provides thrust not the wake. As the props spin they provide the thrust to move the boat through the water. The shape of the hull determines the type of wake a boat produces.
Descriptions of different hull types from wikipedia.

* Displacement -the hull is supported exclusively or predominantly by the pressure of water displaced by the hull

* Semi-displacement, or semi-planing - the hull form is capable of developing a moderate amount of dynamic lift, however, most of the vessel's weight is still supported through displacement

* Planing - the Planing Hull form is configured to develop positive dynamic pressure so that its draft decreases with increasing speed.

Performance boats are planing hulls. So as they move through the water their wakes decrease. A boat with a planing hull with "enough" horsepower, will be able to transition faster from a big wake to a small wake. As the power increases the positive dynamic pressure increases lifting the hull out of the water. So performance boats are actually good for shoreline erosion.
Now cruisers on the other hand being semi-displacement are worse so lets get rid of them. Or increase their horsepower so they have enough thrust to push those hulls up on plane.

The only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too? I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by parrothead

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward. {snip} he only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too? I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)

Originally Posted by Parrothead

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made.

Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.


Thank you Parrothead

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)



Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.


Thank you Parrothead

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?


Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?


Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

Bear Islander, I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on how the difference in hull design effects wakes. I posted my reasons for why I think what I think. I looked up hull designs and read about how water interacts with those designs. And how a wake is produced by a mass moving through liquid, and they didn't jive with your explanation of why performance boats cause more beach erosion than other boats. So I read up on hull design (2) and read up on how a boat motor propels a boat (2) added them together and thought I came up with 4. But I will defer to you because obviously the research I did, and my own personal experiences can't compare to your expertise on the subject. I must be wrong, sorry I doubted your omniscience.
I do believe we landed on the moon, I don't think it was a sound stage or something if that is what you mean.
I also never said anything about the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps. What I did say in the referenced post is that I was working in the transportation department for both camps when the weekend boating programs were stopped. I also stated the reasons that were discussed and why decisions were made. I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

[Airwaves]

Originally pposted by Parrothead
I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

This is the problem with trying to debate Bear Islander. He writes one thing, then denies it, then writes again and denies it again.

Bear Islander at first wrote that high performace boats were chasing camp children off the lake, then he spent how many posts denying that statement when I questioned him? Now he continues to try to fear monger by perpetuating his fear of high performance boats and linking them with summer camps and then tries to discredit you by saying that he, through his alleged conversations with camp directors, knows better than you who was actually there at the time, what the motivation was behind the suspension of whatever on water activities on weekends.

Hell, I'm afraid of heights, so by the logic Bear Islander and his supporters are putting forward, he and they and everyone else should be prohibited from any activity that could possibly take him over not only my property but wherever I happen to be at any given moment because they might fall on me! Heavens!

Bear Islander has yet to tell us where he got the data about a 130 mph boat that is causing fear among family boaters on Lake Winnipesaukee or provide details of these 5 fatalities that he's linked to speed on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Pretty easy to make accusations when you don't back them up.

[Bear Islander]

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You made the statement..

"the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed"

Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

It's a point I have always agreed with.

Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

2. Ideas that are fantastic in theory, but have ZERO chance of being funded or implemented.

I will go with number 1.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

I think #1 would be more accurately described as "Ideas that are unnecessary and would divert existing equipment, funding and personnel away from current missions on Lake Winnipesaukee."

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You made the statement..

"the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed"

Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

I understand that your dock is located in a congested section of the lake. I understand that you get tired of hearing boats throttling up in front of your house. I understand that you don't like performance boats, because they are loud. I understand that you would be happier if those boats were no longer on the lake because it would reduce the noise pollution in your area. Those are all valid points to why you don't like performance boats, I get it. But just leave it a that, they don't cause more land erosion than other boats, cruisers do. So why not just stick to the main reasons that you support a speed limit on the lake. To get loud fast boats off the lake. You propose a HP limit to try to get the cruisers off the lake. I can understand that reasoning, and can respect that. I don't think that enactment of a speed limit is going to accomplish as much as you think. Because if speed limits do truly make the lake safer, then wouldn't it be logical that more boaters will feel it is safe to go out increasing the boat traffic. Which in turn causes more wakes, causing more land erosion. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. And I thank you, because I learned something new this week about how a boat wake, wakes.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

I understand that your dock is located in a congested section of the lake. I understand that you get tired of hearing boats throttling up in front of your house. I understand that you don't like performance boats, because they are loud. I understand that you would be happier if those boats were no longer on the lake because it would reduce the noise pollution in your area. Those are all valid points to why you don't like performance boats, I get it. But just leave it a that, they don't cause more land erosion than other boats, cruisers do. So why not just stick to the main reasons that you support a speed limit on the lake. To get loud fast boats off the lake. You propose a HP limit to try to get the cruisers off the lake. I can understand that reasoning, and can respect that. I don't think that enactment of a speed limit is going to accomplish as much as you think. Because if speed limits do truly make the lake safer, then wouldn't it be logical that more boaters will feel it is safe to go out increasing the boat traffic. Which in turn causes more wakes, causing more land erosion. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. And I thank you, because I learned something new this week about how a boat wake, wakes.

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud.

I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud...

No one thinks BI is truely rich, if he was he would be taking the $20 million astronaut trip with the Russians instead of the $0.2 million dollar bargain trip. He's not lying about pollution and safety, but they are not the primary reasons behind his HB-847 support. They're just attractive after-thoughts stuck on to pretty up the support after all the real reasons came to light and they were unsavory. BI has clearly said he hopes this law will discourage certain boats from using the lake. He says this all the time, it's no secret.

It's not about not liking certain boats, it's about not liking them in his backyard. I'm sure Teddy Kennedy loves windmills, just not where he sails.

Originally Posted by Islander

...
I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

Get a camp director on the forum to tell us what he thinks. Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it. I guarantee the camp director will be more concerned about boats traveling too close to his campers than some boat traveling over 45 MPH in the middle of the broads.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by jrc

Get a camp director on the forum to tell us what he thinks. Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it.

I second that, I would love to hear a single camp director say that the proposed speed limit would allow them to let their kids go out sailing and do stuff they can't now!! I didn't hear a camp director at the Senate public hearing opposing! Just a bunch of people putting words in their mouths, like they are on this forum.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I second that, I would love to hear a single camp director say that the proposed speed limit would allow them to let their kids go out sailing and do stuff they can't now!! I didn't hear a camp director at the Senate public hearing opposing! Just a bunch of people putting words in their mouths, like they are on this forum.

If I can provide that, will you change your position on HB847?


Anybody?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's a point I have always agreed with.

Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

2. Ideas that are fantastic in theory, but have ZERO chance of being funded or implemented.

I will go with number 1.

Gilligan stated that now, even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Gilligan stated that now, even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

Sorry, perhaps you are not aware there is a speed limit in front of my cabin.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors will say about limits?

My guess is that some camp directors and staff would vote for speed limits. In life after speed limits few, if any, would act differently when making the rules about how campers could use the lake.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If I can provide that, will you change your position on HB847?


Anybody?

#1 What does one have to do with the other and
#2 Instead of talking about it, do it. Go ahead.


So if this supposed camp director "FEELS" like the lake would be safer with HB847 we should all just cave in and say, yup BI you were right??

I have to agree with sentiments put forth by Parrothead and a few others. Islander has no original ideas on this forum. All I ever see from Islander is whining when someone "isn't nice" to BI or Islander trashes other peoples opinions and discounts them. And Islander has a problem with OTHER people on this forum, well I have a complaint to lodge against Islander. If your sole purpose on this forum is to come here and say BI is right and everyone else is an idiot, I respectfully request you refrain from doing so. How about being constructive and forming your OWN ideas for once? That'd be refreshing.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

#1 What does one have to do with the other and
#2 Instead of talking about it, do it. Go ahead.


So if this supposed camp director "FEELS" like the lake would be safer with HB847 we should all just cave in and say, yup BI you were right??

I have to agree with sentiments put forth by Parrothead and a few others. Islander has no original ideas on this forum. All I ever see from Islander is whining when someone "isn't nice" to BI or Islander trashes other peoples opinions and discounts them. And Islander has a problem with OTHER people on this forum, well I have a complaint to lodge against Islander. If your sole purpose on this forum is to come here and say BI is right and everyone else is an idiot, I respectfully request you refrain from doing so. How about being constructive and forming your OWN ideas for once? That'd be refreshing.

I want to see if anybody has the guts to put their words on the line. From past experience I think opponents will post they doubt the truth about camp directors and HB847. Then when the evidence is produced they will look for 27 reasons to discount or discredit what the camp directors say.

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors think about limits?

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I want to see if anybody has the guts to put their words on the line. From past experience I think opponents will post they doubt the truth about camp directors and HB847. Then when the evidence is produced they will look for 27 reasons to discount or discredit what the camp directors say.

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors think about limits?

I don't want to say they do support them, because I don't know. So everyone can we concede to BI that some Camp Directors support a speed limit? We don't have any evidence to say they do, or don't. BI states that they do, and they might. As for what that has to do with the passing of speed limits on Winni, I don't know. Camps are "consumers" on the lake just like the rest of us. BI started to whole proposition that camps should be important in the decision making process for this bill. I worked for two camps on Winni, and they are two of my favorite places on the planet. I made great friends their, and have wonderful memories of the time spent there. Every time I am on the lake I drive by the camps to see how they are doing. I have volunteered my time to help prepare the camps for opening. The camps have a very special place in my heart. They do good things for kids every summer. I learned a lot while I was there, and hopefully taught some too. But I don't think that they have anymore right to the lake than the rest of us They have designated swimming areas which are already covered by law. They have designated mooring fields which are also protected under current laws. When driving the ski boats, pulling skiers I had to follow the rules like everyone else, no special camp privileges. So while a camp directors opinion should be heard, no more weight should be given it than anyone else. So BI I give you that Camp Directors may support a speed limit. Will it change my mind. No.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud.

I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

Islander why is my post questioning BI's preconceived ideas any different than him questioning mine? Why are his opinions more correct than mine? This is a debate, we are debating an issue that affects the boating community on Winnipesaukee. I questioned a point that was brought up and in fact did research on it before I posted my questions.
I am not against safety, I was responsible for 100's of campers over the years I transported them back and forth from the mainland to Bear Island. In fact for the years that I worked there it was my responsibility to get every staff member and camper to the island. I drove the Bear every change day when the campers left and came to the island. In my opinion education and enforcement are a better way to make the lake safer. If the speed limit is passed I will operate my families boat within the law as I have been doing all along. As for pollution and erosion, I didn't buy BI's opinion on the matter. And apparently he didn't buy mine. So be it, life goes on we agree to disagree.
Where did anyone ever say that they hate the fact camp directors support limits. We are just making our own choices on this issue. I just happen not be making the same choice as you. And since this is a public forum I have just as much right to let my opinion be know as you do. I did, and provided the reasons why.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

You may think they are nice to look at and all, but not on Winnipesaukee. Through most of the thread about Lt. Dunleavy you stated repeatedly that you didn't think that GFBL boats have a place on Winnipesaukee. You didn't say that GFBL boats not following the laws have no place on Winnipesaukee, you said all GFBL. So following that logic I assume you don't like GFBL boats. Now we should discuss the reason why. How about a GFBL boat whose operator follows the speed limit law if it is passed? Does that boat still not have a place on Winni? Can they enjoy the lake like everyone else, or should they leave? They are doing nothing different than any other boater on the lake.
Do they cause erosion? Any power boat in motion will contribute to erosion. So it can't just be that, because cruisers are much more offenders than any other type of boat.
Pollution? Any internal combustion engine will contribute to pollution, as well as cars, planes, trains, and space ships (sorry had to throw that in). Do GFBL boats produce more pollution than any other boat. Yes! I'll give you that. Some have two or three engines compared to the normal runabouts one so they produce more exhaust. Also performance boats with through hull exhaust do contribute more to noise pollution than boats with through prop exhaust. So GFBL boats do contribute more to pollution. But given the number of GFBL boats on the lake compared to the other types I can't imagine it will make that big of an impact. The increase in boat traffic in general is more of a pollution concern than just GFBL boats.
So I guess hate might be a strong word, but you certainly don't want them on Winni. As for camp directors "hating" performance boats, I really don't care. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, me, and Camp Directors. And I know you will take this as spin, but you state in the first sentence of your post that you don't dislike GFBL boats, and in the next paragraph you ask why if directors hate performance boats why can't your motives be the same. Well they can't be because you like performance boats and they apparently don't. Not that we have heard from them as to what their opinion is. You stated your opinion as a one time Camp Director, so we do know that at least one Camp Director doesn't like perfomance boats. You.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

..

And I know you will take this as spin, but you state in the first sentence of your post that you don't dislike GFBL boats, and in the next paragraph you ask why if directors hate performance boats why can't your motives be the same. Well they can't be because you like performance boats and they apparently don't. Not that we have heard from them as to what their opinion is. You stated your opinion as a one time Camp Director, so we do know that at least one Camp Director doesn't like perfomance boats. You.

One again you have misread what I posted. I never said camp directors hate performance boats. Perhaps I was being to subtle, but my points was that camp director are in favor of speed limits because it will improve camp life, NOT because they HATE performance boats. I don't believe camp directors hate performance boats and I don't either. We both have the same objective in mind, a better lake.

And we have heard from the camp directors. And yes they do support HB847.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

BI...

FINALLY! You hit it on the head... "HIGH SPEED FATALITIES ARE RARE ENOUGH" You & WINNCRABS NEED TO INCREASE the statistical pool to legitimize your argument! The reality is that high speed accidents are EXTREMELY RARE and statistically NON-EXISTANT if you remove ALCOHOL from the equation!

Statistically, every time someone gets behind the wheel of any sort of vehicle, car, truck, snomobile, boat, atv, etc there is a POSSIBILITY of an accident occurring. The PROBABILITY of an accident increases dramatically when the operator has been drinking!

If you dissect the Long Lake accident, All things being equal, if remove ALCOHOL from the equation, the POSSIBILITY of the accident doesnt change, however the PROBABILITY of that accident occurring would be NIL.

There is always the POSSIBILITY of a boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee, however the PROBABLILITY IS NIL!!

Still waiting for that SOBER High Speed accident.....


Woodsy

Possibility: the state or fact of being possible

Probability: Statistics: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

The REAL joke is this logic. Yeah sure BI we need to increase the statistical sample pool until you are satisfied with the results. What a JOKE. If at first you are not satisfied with the data just twist it skew it increase the sample and then you get what you want? Give me a break. Face it you yourself said it : High speed fatalities are rare enough If that is the case WHY DO WE NEED A LAW?!?!?!?!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

At least 4.

I don't know what the speed was on the 5th.

[Islander]

This is where the faithful jump in with a list of silly reasons why those 4 or 5 deaths don't count.

[chipj29]

Again, I guess I should clarify.
What speeds did those accidents occur at? Were the speeds above or below the proposed limit? And remember..."excessive speed" does not equal anything over 45.

And what was the primary cause of the accidents?