You are a senator how do you vote on HB-847

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

A better poll might be this.

How many people have read the Speed Survey conducted by the MP?

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

Originally Posted by JULY 7, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 16, 2007
CONDUCTED BY
DIVISION OF SAFETY SERVICES
MARINE PATROL
STATISTICAL RESULTS OF SAMPLING

There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.

One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

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.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...

GWC, you know very well that I have read that study, since I have repeatedly posted my views on it - but just in case you don't remember, I'll repeat them:

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly and am currently involved in the final stages of a municipal survey at my university that will be used in a town’s comprehensive plan. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.

To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling, these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). BTW: that’s the correct why interpret a segment/population survey. The raw data means nothing until you expolate it back into the total population/period/area.

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake? Why wasn’t the Broads included in the study, if they were actually trying to record the fastest boats?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

GWC:why are you still dredging up my posts from over 3 years ago, and taking them completely out of context?

[Mashugana]

If you want to use what you believe is a meaningless study to make your point I will be gracious and try see your pointt and respond to your conclusions.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The [MP speed survey] study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly {snip}. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.
{snip}
Here’s a more accurate analysis:
{snip}
So, based on [Evenstar's interpretation of] the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

Yes ma'am it is absolutely possible that some of those boats many not have seen a certain kayak until they were closer than 150 feet. It does not mean that they did not see your kayak but it certainly is possible. You are right on that point. The possibility exists.

Your interpretation of the statistics has 2,156 boats actually going over 50 mph on the entire lake in all of 11 weeks. You did not say how long in minutes or hours they were presumed to be over 50 mph so I will ignore that omission for this post. How many of those 2,156 "speeding boats" were the cause of ANY kayak accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, if these violators (unsafe operation, 150' rule and maybe others) were going 45 mph instead of 50 mph would it have made any significant difference in their attentiveness? Probably not.

You will say that 45 mph instead of 50 mph would give the inattentive (and illegally operating) boaters more time to react to your presence. Maybe a fraction of a second or so. The main point from me is that these boaters are already violating the laws. If the MP aren't around to enforce those laws we already have that make those 150' violators behave how can you expect them to be there to enforce a new law that we do not need?

Again, I am accepting your interpretation of the statistics here simply for discussion purposes even though I may not believe your analysis of the data. You have not shown where that 5 mph difference would have prevented any of the kayak accidents that we never heard of or were unreported.

[ITD]

I don't know what happened to no comments only votes in this thread, but everyone else is ignoring it so I might as well too.

I see the survey has entered the discussion again. First of all, let's do the simple math, 36 boats out of 3,914 (day and night added together) were going over 45mph, which equals 0.9 % of the boats measured were at or over the proposed speed limit. Less than one percent. Calculate for the "high speed" boats, those over 50 mph and we end up with 0.28%. That would be 1 boat travelling 50 or over out of every 355 you see on the lake.

Pretty damning numbers against the "wild west" high speed boats everywhere argument if you are a proponent. So the spin doctors come out with their anecdotes.

Here are a few:

1. The areas were announced.
Actually only 3 of 9 were publically announced. The other 6 weren't.
2. Marked MP boats were used.
Ok, that's true, so what. Another argument used by the proponents
is that these high speed boats can't see anything until they are on top
of it giving them little time to react. For this study, the argument
is the high speed boats see the MP boats miles away and slow down.
Can't have it both ways guys.
3. The study only covered a small percentage of daylight hours, or the
study only cover a small area of the lake.

Irrelevant. We are talking about speed here, not boating density or
habits. If I believe these arguments, then I have to take them to the
appropriate level. For instance, the radar gun obtains its reading in a
few milliseconds and the average boat occupies only about 100 square
feet of the lake. So in reality the actual boating time the readings
reflect would be 2 milliseconds times 3,914 boats or about 8 seconds
of real boat time. The area covered by the readings would be 100
square feet times 3,914 boats, or 391,400 sq ft out of 72 square miles
of lake. Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's not relevant to the speed
recorded OR the sample required to get an understanding of what is
happening on the lake.

It is dangerous to take these numbers and start drawing boat population conclusions. The only relevant number from this study is that 1 out of 355 boats is travelling faster than 50 mph.

That number shows there are no problems on this lake that a speed limit will solve, everything else is just spin....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

2. Marked MP boats were used.
Ok, that's true, so what. So the study is invalid, that's what! Another argument used by the proponents
is that these high speed boats can't see anything until they are on top
of it giving them little time to react. For this study, the argument
is the high speed boats see the MP boats miles away and slow down.
Can't have it both ways guys.

You post this and then say everything else is spin?

Was the proponent that brought up the visibility problem talking about kayaks, or Marine Patrol Boats.

What you posted is the very definition of spin....

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You post this and then say everything else is spin?

Was the proponent that brought up the visibility problem talking about kayaks, or Marine Patrol Boats.

What you posted is the very definition of spin....

Marked boats do not make the study invalid, just as marked cop cars do not make their speed readings invalid.

The "wild west" out there, "unsafe speeds", boats capable of "130 mph", close calls with high speed boats, all arguments used by the pro speed limit crowd. They make it sound like mayhem out there, yet a study is done and shows NO PROBLEM. Not even a hint of a problem. So the spin doctors come out and have done a pretty good job of tarnishing the reputation of the professionals who only tried to identify if there is a problem. They found there wasn't, and the pro speed limit crowd has no shame when it comes to manipulating to get what they want.........

There is no speed problem on the lake, reasonable people who look objectively can see that. People with an agenda can't.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Marked boats do not make the study invalid, just as marked cop cars do not make their speed readings invalid.

The "wild west" out there, "unsafe speeds", boats capable of "130 mph", close calls with high speed boats, all arguments used by the pro speed limit crowd. They make it sound like mayhem out there, yet a study is done and shows NO PROBLEM. Not even a hint of a problem. So the spin doctors come out and have done a pretty good job of tarnishing the reputation of the professionals who only tried to identify if there is a problem. They found there wasn't, and the pro speed limit crowd has no shame when it comes to manipulating to get what they want.........

There is no speed problem on the lake, reasonable people who look objectively can see that. People with an agenda can't.

If you were going to do a speed study on the lake, and you wanted good data. Not politically motivated results or feel good results, but the real answers to how fast boats are going on the lake. Would you conduct the study from marked or unmarked boats?

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you were going to do a speed study on the lake, and you wanted good data. Not politically motivated results or feel good results, but the real answers to how fast boats are going on the lake. Would you conduct the study from marked or unmarked boats?

This whole 45 mph daytime and 25 mph nighttime speed limit debate is no laughing matter. Most of the 100s of messages about the proposed law in recent threads don't even qualify as debate IMHO.

I'm no statistician but I would want to see results from both marked and unmarked boats. Aircraft observations would also be interesting. The Marine Patrol conducting real world tests might have done the tests the same way they would put any new law into practice.

Just curious Islander, you and Bear Islander have the same last name. Are you related?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you were going to do a speed study on the lake, and you wanted good data. Not politically motivated results or feel good results, but the real answers to how fast boats are going on the lake. Would you conduct the study from marked or unmarked boats?

I would get a radar gun and start pointing it at boats.

Let me tell you, after reading the initial reports on the speed limit debate in the media, you people had me doubting my own experience on the lake. I was worried that this study was going to show that 35 or 45 percent of the boats on the lake would be travelling at speeds well in excess of 50 mph. The snow job you guys did was that good, even though after spending most summer days on the lake for the past 7 or 8 summers, my experience is more in line with what MP reported.

If I accept your argument that using marked MP boats would cause speeding boats to slow down ( I don't accept this but for argument's sake let's say I do) I would have expected at least 10 to 15 percent to still be exceeding 50 mph based on the proponents reports of what it was like on the lake.

Instead the number was 0.28 % !!!!!!!!!! The report we got was right in line with what I see on the lake day in and day out. 1 out of 355 boats travelling in excess of 50 mph. It fits, it's reality on the lake. You may not like it, it may not fit your agenda, but it is the truth.

The only thing a speed limit will do on the lake is make it more dangerous as MP leaves other duties that have made the lake so safe to set up speed traps to serve your agenda, your need to make the lake your own little playground......

[Bear Islander]

Evenstar

They have trouble attacking the message, so they attack the messenger. Every time they get personal it's an admission they have lost the argument. When they deliberately "misunderstand" your posts, it means they can't argue with what you really posted.

There is no question that speed limit supporters have been more civil and respectful in this forum. But then common sense, logic, evidence, public opinion and Coast Guard Statistics are on our side. All they have is a "need for speed" and a misplaced "live free or die" attitude.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Evenstar

They have trouble attacking the message, so they attack the messenger. Every time they get personal it's an admission they have lost the argument. When they deliberately "misunderstand" your posts, it means they can't argue with what you really posted.

Bear Islander, you have now explained why Evenstar, responding to my post said to me,

Originally Posted by Evenstar to Skipper of the Sea Que #585 in Lt. Dunleavy thread

"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 {snip}

Referring to my comments as "lame" and "you guys (me included) are getting really pathetic" are not personal or attacks? I took it personally as I have with some of the other things I have been called (some with qualifications) in the Speed Limit threads.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Evenstar

They have trouble attacking the message, so they attack the messenger. Every time they get personal it's an admission they have lost the argument. When they deliberately "misunderstand" your posts, it means they can't argue with what you really posted.

There is no question that speed limit supporters have been more civil and respectful in this forum. But then common sense, logic, evidence, public opinion and Coast Guard Statistics are on our side. All they have is a "need for speed" and a misplaced "live free or die" attitude.

BI, with all due respect, this style has been used equally by posters on both sides of the speed limit debate here.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

BI, with all due respect, this style has been used equally by posters on both sides of the speed limit debate here.

No, it has not. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark.

I rarely have used personal comments, and then only if provoked. Shall we post a list of comments and innuendo about me as opposed to those I have made about others?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, it has not. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark.

I rarely have used personal comments, and then only if provoked. Shall we post a list of comments and innuendo about me as opposed to those I have made about others?

I was not talking about you, nor anyone else specifically. Just the two groups, the proponents and the opponents.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, it has not. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark.

I rarely have used personal comments, and then only if provoked. Shall we post a list of comments and innuendo about me as opposed to those I have made about others?

No, let's please not.

How about we all act like adults and return to the original intent of this thread:

Originally Posted by parrothead

No responses more than the poll questions. One response per user please. No comments just a general poll of how everyone stands.

How do you vote for a 45/25 mph speed limit for Lake Winnipesaukee?

1. For
2. Against
3. Undecided

Thank you....

[parrothead]

The poll is closed. So it is what it is, read what you want into it. But voting is stopped.

[TiltonBB]

I work in Concord and I would really like to ride my horse to work. My family has been coming here for years, and, until the fast cars came along, we were always able to ride our horses anywhere. I would love to be able to take 104 to 93 and have my horse gallop all the way to Concord, just like my great grandparents did.

Now, with all those irresponsible people in their really fast cars, it has become dangerous out there. It scares my horse when those cars go by real close, like within 150 feet.

I think route 93 needs a speed limit of, say, 10MPH (5 MPH at night) so that my horse and I will be safe. Maybe even a horsepower limit! (My way of thinking is one horsepower is just right) That way, all of us can enjoy route 93 at the same time without infringing on my rights to travel on horseback any where I want, and everyone else's right to drive their car. It's a win win solution!

As for proof that the speed problem exists: Two years ago my cousin told me that his wife's sister knew a guy who knew someone who had a friend who was killed in a car accident on route 93 and they were going over 10MPH. There you have it!

Perhaps WINFABS and all the speed limit proponents can get to work on this right away. Don't be so self centered that you only concern yourself with the lake. Help to make our entire state safer!

[VtSteve]

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't slow down just because I was in sight of an MP boat.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Would it be legal to equip a kayak with a dummy (no offense to anyone) and a gps system and let it roam various parts of the lake. Equip the vessel with a distance measuring device. Program the kayak to travel a random journey but not approach anything within 250 feet. Keep track of every encounter of moving objects. You could calculate the other boat's speed and how close the minimum passage point was. Keep track of boats that pass within a 1000 feet. Have the system audited by both sides of the issue and publish data on every passing event.

How many boats encountered?
Percent at 5, 10, 15 ... 125, 130 mph?
Minimum distance of passage?
Graph of speed vs passage distance of events < 150 feet.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred with speed > 45.
Report results when dummy wearing orange and dark blue.

Can just picture this poor mannequin passing between governors and the weirs on the forth of July weekend.

Beep 70 feet at 24 mph @ 3 oclock
Beep 40 feet at 30 mph @ 11 oclock
Beep 15 feet at 15 mph @ 5 oclock
Mama.....

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Would it be legal to equip a kayak with a dummy (no offense to anyone) and a gps system and let it roam various parts of the lake.
{snip} Have the system audited by both sides of the issue and publish data on every passing event.

I think you have a handle on a good scheme RG. It may not be legal though to let a vessel float around without control. What would keep it from crashing into something even another kayak? Would it have a Rumba type sensor? Why not put an MP officer with radar in the unmarked kayak. Aww but then someone might claim a bias on one side or the other.

What ideas do you have for impartial measures about other concerns? There are already laws about 150 feet safe passage and more for loudness, erosion, and all the others but some people say only a new speed limit will work.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

I think you have a handle on a good scheme RG. It may not be legal though to let a vessel float around without control. What would keep it from crashing into something even another kayak?

I think it's a great idea.There would be nothing illegal about anchoring the kayak.But I'm sure if the collected data shows us what we have already learned about the lack of speeding over 45 and the large violations of the 150 ft law by the slower craft,it will soon be dicredited by you know who.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I think it's a great idea.There would be nothing illegal about anchoring the kayak.But I'm sure if the collected data shows us what we have already learned about the lack of speeding over 45 and the large violations of the 150 ft law by the slower craft,it will soon be dicredited by you know who.

An anchored boat with nobody on board is an illegal mooring.

What do you think collecting data on boat speed will prove?

1. If no boats are going over 45 then a speed limit will inconvenience no one, and no enforcement at all will be required.

2. If boats are going over 45 mph in small numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

3. If boats are going over 45 mph in large numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

This is a no win argument for the opposition no matter what the numbers are. You can call it spin, or you can call it reality. The numbers of boats going over 45 just doesn't matter.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

An anchored boat with nobody on board is an illegal mooring.

What do you think collecting data on boat speed will prove?

1. If no boats are going over 45 then a speed limit will inconvenience no one, and no enforcement at all will be required.

2. If boats are going over 45 mph in small numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

3. If boats are going over 45 mph in large numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

This is a no win argument for the opposition no matter what the numbers are. You can call it spin, or you can call it reality. The numbers of boats going over 45 just doesn't matter.

OH MY HEAD!!!

It actually pains me to respond to some of your posts! It matters because it is a PERSONAL LIBERTY that I (and others) happen to exercise! It matters because it COSTS MONEY to implement & maintain! It matters because you have no basis of fact for your argument other than FEAR!

I would be pretty interested to see the RSA that explains how an anchored boat is somehow an illegal mooring....

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

OH MY HEAD!!!

It actually pains me to respond to some of your posts! It matters because it is a PERSONAL LIBERTY that I (and others) happen to exercise! It matters because it COSTS MONEY to implement & maintain! It matters because you have no basis of fact for your argument other than FEAR!

I would be pretty interested to see the RSA that explains how an anchored boat is somehow an illegal mooring....

Woodsy

Sorry Woodsy, I know that it matters to you very much. However the number of boats going over 45 does not matter TO THE ARGUMENT. We need speed limits "no matter" how many boats go over 45 now. The argument is not relevant.



Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.


270:61 Mooring Permit Required; Limitations. –

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry Woodsy, I know that it matters to you very much. However the number of boats going over 45 does not matter TO THE ARGUMENT. We need speed limits "no matter" how many boats go over 45 now. The argument is not relevant.



Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.


270:61 Mooring Permit Required; Limitations. –

BI...

It's YOUR OPINION that the number of boats traveling over 45 isn't relevant. To many others it is in fact the crux of the argument... Why pass a law that cost people thier liberty and taxpayers money if the number of baots that travel over 45 MPH is a small percentage! Wouldnt the time & money be better spent elsewhere?

You want this law to get a certain type of boat off the lake and to your credit you make no secret of that, however many others who support the passsage of HB-847 say something completely different...

As far as your Quote of SAF-C-401.12 - You need too look up the definition of "Mooring Anchor"! There is a HUGE difference between a "MOORED" boat and an "ANCHORED" boat! A MOORING is considered a permanent anchor point! Thats why you need PERMITS to get one!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

It's YOUR OPINION that the number of boats traveling over 45 isn't relevant. To many others it is in fact the crux of the argument... Why pass a law that cost people thier liberty and taxpayers money if the number of baots that travel over 45 MPH is a small percentage! Wouldnt the time & money be better spent elsewhere?

You want this law to get a certain type of boat off the lake and to your credit you make no secret of that, however many others who support the passsage of HB-847 say something completely different...

As far as your Quote of SAF-C-401.12 - You need too look up the definition of "Mooring Anchor"! There is a HUGE difference between a "MOORED" boat and an "ANCHORED" boat! A MOORING is considered a permanent anchor point! Thats why you need PERMITS to get one!

Woodsy

We can argue the definitions all day. I have been involved with this and the Marine Patrol. There are plenty of people that would like to find a way around the mooring rules. If you think the MP will let you stay because you are using a "boat anchor" instead of a "mooring anchor", you are mistaken.

If you attach a boat to the bottom of the lake it's a mooring in the Marine Patrols eyes. To be "anchored" instead of "moored" you must be on board (or I guess swimming near by).

If you find it's legal to anchor a kayak without anybody on board, please let me know. I have two kayaks and a couple of cement blocks I will use to keep power boats away. Who needs a swim line permit, just get a bunch of old kayaks. I don't think so.

Skip - ask your MP friends about this one. You may be surprised. I have had the MP explain it to me in detail. I called the office and got a firm confirmation. You can't "anchor" an empty boat. I tried it, they didn't buy it.


Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hmmm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hm mm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

The states definition of a mooring is very broad, perhaps on purpose. A rope tied to a brick meets the criteria. What is the difference between an unattended boat at anchor and a boat on a mooring, not much!

Perhaps the Marine Patrol use the duck rule. If it walks like a duck....

I agree that the length of time seems important. But I can't find it in the rules.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hmmm another law that we need a law firm to figure out .

Good point Skipper, andf it brings up an element of the offense the many laypeople don't understand....intent.

The State must show what your intention was in committing the offense. That is why no time frame needs to be specified for this particular offense, and why the blanket definition " a boat anchored with no one in it is an illegal mooring" is not a correct definition.

It also explains why you can see, on any given wekend, dozens if not hundreds of anchored unattended boats scattered about Winni or Ossipee with full marine patrol presence, and no summonses being issued.

Here's an example:

You anchor your boat and all head off for a swim, or a walk ashore, or what have you. Your actions are temporary in nature and you have no intent of making that particular anchoring point a permanent or semi-permanent point to return to on a regular basis. Your intent is to anchor...not create a mooring. You therefore have not created an offense, and you see this happening virtually anytime you boat on Winni.

Second case. You decide that you are going to control a particular sectiuon of your lake by anchoring a kayak or other vessel out in the navigable portion of the waterway to force the 150 foot rule, or to circumvent the swim line requirements. Here your intentions are completely different and you will run afoul of the NHMP if they are made aware of ther situation and derive the same intent.

A whole world of difference according to my friends at the NHMP.

I apologize to Don and the readers for being baited in to this thread hijacking. As always, anyone is welcome to PM me offline for addtional information or resources to opursue to find correct interpretations of New Hamposhire's boating regulations....

Anchors away!

Skip

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... I mean topic:

I vote against the proposed addition of a 45/25mph speed limit.

If I'm a Senator I might change my vote if the current NH law were amended to reflect the laws used on many out-of-state lakes with speed limits - that is, remove the 150 foot rule. If speed limits work on those other lakes that have no 150' rule then we should make NH work as well as those other state's lakes.

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... I mean topic:

I vote against the proposed addition of a 45/25mph speed limit.

If I'm a Senator I might change my vote if the current NH law were amended to reflect the laws used on many out-of-state lakes with speed limits - that is, remove the 150 foot rule. If speed limits work on those other lakes that have no 150' rule then we should make NH work as well as those other state's lakes.

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

I must respectfully disagree on that. I think that removing the 150' law is an IMMEDIATE danger to everyone on the lake. Allowing it to be legal for boats to travel 45mph within 30 feet of each other is extremely dangerous. One false, slight turn of the wheel at that distance and people can die. If boats are traveling that close and someone takes a wave the wrong way it could mean a collision as well.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

An anchored boat with nobody on board is an illegal mooring.

Really? Since you want to get technical, if I anchor my boat and jump in the water to swim around then by your statement that makes my boat in violation? Are you telling me that all the boats that are anchored during the day at various spots around the lake with nobody in them are in violation of the mooring rules? Why doesn't MP site all of the empty ones in Braun Bay when they make their run through there? Because your statement is ludicrous that's why. Pleeese.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...An anchored boat with nobody on board is an illegal mooring...

As has already been pointed out, that is not the correct interpretation of either the RSA or the Administrative Rules governing mooring.

No need into hijacking this thread any further as its obvious that the spirit and the intent of the regulations in question in no way offers a definition of mooring as expressed by your opinion above.

As always, I urge the reader to visit HERE and feel free to utilze the contact information given to receive up to the minute correct information regarding New Hampshire's boating regulations.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your interpretation of the statistics has 2,156 boats actually going over 50 mph on the entire lake in all of 11 weeks. You did not say how long in minutes or hours they were presumed to be over 50 mph so I will ignore that omission for this post. How many of those 2,156 "speeding boats" were the cause of ANY kayak accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, if these violators (unsafe operation, 150' rule and maybe others) were going 45 mph instead of 50 mph would it have made any significant difference in their attentiveness? Probably not.

I didn’t interpret anything, it’s called statistical analysis – the marine patrol provided the raw data. The MP didn’t publish any data that give how long boats were going over 50 mph, so why would I be expected to include that “omission.” First of all “over 50 mph” does not mean 50 mph. according to the MP, 8 of the boats were going between 51 and 60 mph, and 3 were going between 60 and 70 mph. At 70 mph, a boat is going 103 feet per second – in less than 1.5 seconds it would cross my entire 150 foot zone – that’s not much more than a blink. The faster a boat is traveling the more of the lake that gets covered in that blink.

I’ve been trying to explain this for months, but most people here still don’t get it (or they are ignoring it). This is not about the difference between 45 and 50 mph – this is about continuing to permit boats to travel at unlimited speeds. If no boat ever went over 50 mph, then I wouldn’t be fighting so hard for a speed limit. The study actually gives that 27% of the boats that were traveling over 50 mph were traveling at speeds over 60 mph. When you plug that into those 2,156 boats, you have 582 boats that were traveling over 60 mph.

The other thing is that lack of kayak/powerboat high-speed collisions is not proof that we don’t need a speed limit – it just proves that people like me have been lucky so far. I have had high-speed boats violate my 150 foot zone just because the operators were traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats (based on their expression and reaction when they did finally notice me.) These were unintentional violations – caused by their excessive speeds. Had they been traveling at a more reasonable speed they probably would have seen me much sooner.

So far I have not been run over by a powerboat – but I have had way too many close calls. And I’m not the only one – sooner or later a close call is going to result in a fatality. That’s what I’m fighting to prevent. Squam lake has a 40 mph speed limit, and I kayak there a lot on weekends. No powerboat has ever violated my 150 zone on Squam because they were traveling too fast to see me. That has only happened on likes without a speed limit.

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

fficeffice" />>>
>>
This has nothing to do with probability (this is the correct way to spell it, BTW). And there's nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. If you're so knowledgeable in this area, why don't you try to explain why my analysis is incorrect, rather than just making derogatory comments about my education?

[jrc]

withdrawn as off topic

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

Sorry I didn't know that spelling counted. I'm not very good at spelling, typing or grammar, feel free to make fun of me. Adults know they have weaknesses.

I honestly was not trying to make fun of you at all - I was just pointing out the proper spelling, as that's the way that my spell checker corrected it. I meant no harm.

The simplest thing is common sense. You cannot assume that the population of boats has a uniform distribution. That means that there are not always the same number of boats on the lake during daylight hours, your analysis assumes there are.

If the study was done properly, it would have been done in the areas of the lake that represented the overall condition found on the entire lake. I have to assume this is the case to do the analysis - what would you have me do, guess?

How can you make assumptions about a population from a sample without understanding that your assumption has a probabilty attached to it? When the polls say Clinton is ahead of Obama by 10% they always say something like with a 3% margin. That's a probablility.

Yes, it is called margin of error - and I've commented on this a number of times (I call this a statistical factor - you call it probability, language is my weakness, so I may very well be using the wrong word here).

As I have stated before, the report on the speed study did not give the margin of error - which in itself makes the data meaningless. Yet when I pointed that out, the speed limit opponents here jumped all over me. Claiming that I was just finding fault with the study because it didn't support the need for a speed limit.

Look, you either accept the study as valid or not. If you accept it as valid, then you have to use the raw data from it and plug it back into the environment. My analysis is only as accurate as the study - which I don't feel was done in a way that resulted in any usable data. But my analysis is still correct for the data that was given.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...

I withdrew my previous comments as off topic. If you want me to explain probability and statistics as applied to the speed survey open another topic.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

....
To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all...

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

You beat me to it... I was going to say the same thing. The variables alone have enough in them holes to sink the Mount. Drivel absolute drivel. Not to mention you can't EXPOLATE data. You can EXTRAPOLATE it though. I know you are going to claim that I am just being negative Evanstar but please. If you want to throw it around how "educated" you are and then post a completely ridiculous "lesson" on statistics you are going to be called out.

The end results even based on your flawed interpretation do prove one thing. The MAJORITY of boats on the lake are NOT exceeding 45MPH. You can spin it any way you want but that is a fact.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You beat me to it... I was going to say the same thing. The variables alone have enough in them holes to sink the Mount. Drivel absolute drivel. Not to mention you can't EXPOLATE data. You can EXTRAPOLATE it though. I know you are going to claim that I am just being negative Evanstar but please. If you want to throw it around how "educated" you are and then post a completely ridiculous "lesson" on statistics you are going to be called out.

The end results even based on your flawed interpretation do prove one thing. The MAJORITY of boats on the lake are NOT exceeding 45MPH. You can spin it any way you want but that is a fact.

What is it with you people????!!!! Just because I'm in support of this bill does not give you the right to insult me!

It is also in violation of the forum rules:

Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

If you don't agree with something expressed on the Forum respond with your opinion, don't get personal! Your comments and opinions are welcome, personal attacks, insults or flames are not.

No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!

You people really need to learn how to debate!

I've posted this before, but I'm still accused of bragging about all my abilities (now I'll likely be accused of looking for sympathy - which I'm not!). I'm a very open person and don't really know how to be anything but honest and direct - that's the only way that I can communicate.

You see, I happen to have brain damage, from being in a really bad accident when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damaged. The left side is the language side, so I have some major problems with language - which includes things like spelling - which I mess up all the time. I cannot even think in words - I think only in images. When I write, I have to translate these images into words - which is a very difficult process. It takes me 3 or 4 times longer than the average college student to write a paper.

So please don't make fun of me because I mess up a letter or two now and then.

I'm a very good student, but only because I work extremely hard and stay up half the night studying. I'm able to attend my university because of academic scholarships and through a disability grant.

I can defend myself but it is not fair to attack me personally, just because I honestly believe that a speed limit will make our lakes safer.

If you don't agree with what I post - attack my points - not me.

No one has yet found anything specifically wrong with my statistical analysis of the speed study. All anyone's done so far is made fun of me and stated insulting generalities that my analysis is not correct. If I'm wrong, tell me why - don't just insult me in a lame attempt to discredit me.

Oh, Joe Kerr, I really don't know why you decided to join in on the attacks on me, other than it's really easy to join the crowd and pick on someone who is in the minority. I didn't get a 2.0 in Research Methodology last semester - I got a 4.0. I've never received less than a 4.0 in college (well, so far that is - but I tomorrow's final can easily end that streak).

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Oh, Joe Kerr, I really don't know why you decided to join in on the attacks on me, other than it's really easy to join the crowd and pick on someone who is in the minority. I didn't get a 2.0 in Research Methodology last semester - I got a 4.0. I've never received less than a 4.0 in college (well, so far that is - but I tomorrow's final can easily end that streak).

Oh, Evenstar, I didn't know that I was attacking you. I thought I was making fun of "jrc's" spelling of "probability".

Originally Posted by ME quoting jrc's post

(even spelling - probablity ). Evenstar might have gotten a 2.0 or less in that course.

that course being statistics or whatever and not spelling. I don't not think you are taking a spelling class in college.

I did not know what kind of grades you get so I made the comment that you or anyone for that matter could get a 4.0 or a 2.0 and we would not know. No one asks to see a report card. Do you ask your doctor if he got an "A" or a "C" in broken arms?

The Einstein comment is easy to explain. He said "E=MC squared." A few characters. What you wrote was much more than that and I am not going to waste hours trying to figure it out. I couldn't follow it no way no how. It's not like an easy Einstein equation that has been proven. Your formula for safety has not been proven. Only speed limit of 45 mph will force boaters to give you your 150 feet of space there is no QED (thus it has been proved). There is no evidence that this speed limit will do much of anything except use resources that could be used to enforce current law.

For the record I am Against the proposed speed limit,

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

Hey be nice jrc. Not everyone gets a 4.0 perfect score in every class (even spelling - probablity ). Evenstar might have gotten a 2.0 or less in that course. Sometimes the student is at fault and sometimes it is the professor. Not everyone is an Einstein as Evenstar has demonstrated.