Life after speed limits

[Turtle Boy]

VtSteve makes some good points, however his statement about having little respect for whiners, selfish ones at that , deserves further comment. Evenstar, in my opinion, has been reepeatedly and angrily denounced for opinions which differ from most of the posters on this forum. Her concerns echo those of many of us who feel that boating on Winni has taken on a "wild west, anything goes" atmosphere. The rancor leveled at her and others who have supported a speed limit for Winni has driven away or kept away those who may have dissenting opinions, again in my opinion. Many, many people have earnestly embraced the 45/25 speed limit as a reasonable solution, and there has been no shortage of "whiners" and melodrama in the anti speed limit camp. A few arguments/issues I've had difficulty with:

1) We should not have a speed limit because there are not enough resources to enforce them. Well in my NH town we have many many miles of road and just 1 or 2 cops to enforce speed limits. I can drive for miles and miles with little expectation of seeing a police cruiser. Does that mean we should repeal all speed limits in town? Obviously not...the speed limit alone is a deterrent for most people.

2) The arguments that a speed limit will unequivably drive business from the state . Many business owners have been proponents of the speed limit because they feel it will improve business and that said wild west atmosphere has in fact driven many power boaters away.

3) That the pro speed limit group has a monopoly on all of the melodrama in this controversy over speed limits on the lake. After the house passed the first speed limit, one objector moaned " if the old man of the mtn were still standing, he would have shed a tear today". Oh brother.

4) A poll showing that the majority of NH people are in favor of speed limits has been dismissed with a variety of specious (and angry, bitter) arguments . Our legislators in the House and Senate are characterized as having been totally bamboozled by the Winnfabs (sometimes referred to as Winncrabs, Winnfarts) crowd. One poster commented that we need to vote these hacks out. Isn't that what happened after the last election with a Senate that rejected speed limits?

5) That this law is really only a thinly disguised way of getting boats/boaters off the lake that they don't like. In reality, reasonable people and their representatives make laws all the time to restrict objectionable behavior that is felt to be inappropriate. For example, we have laws in my town that regulate dogs who bark all night. Have we enacted legislation against dogs/owners that we don't like? Call it whatever you want. And if people object to boats going 70 MPH 150' from the little put put from which they are fishing...well.

Well, enough for now, but to Evenstar, just because you've been singled out and maligned in a forum where you are the minority doesn't mean that no one hasn't noted your sincere committment to what you believe in. Keep up the good work. The speed limit will happen. Maybe people will even slow down enough to ... see the turtles.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

1) We should not have a speed limit because there are not enough resources to enforce them. Well in my NH town we have many many miles of road and just 1 or 2 cops to enforce speed limits. I can drive for miles and miles with little expectation of seeing a police cruiser. Does that mean we should repeal all speed limits in town? Obviously not...the speed limit alone is a deterrent for most people.

The MP has a difficult time enforcing the current laws on the books. Most importantly the 150 foot rule and DUI!

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

4) A poll showing that the majority of NH people are in favor of speed limits has been dismissed with a variety of specious (and angry, bitter) arguments . Our legislators in the House and Senate are characterized as having been totally bamboozled by the Winnfabs (sometimes referred to as Winncrabs, Winnfarts) crowd.

So the pro speed limit crowd references the poll over and over, and the anti speed limit crowd references the speed study. Flaws in both polls have been exposed and debated here in the recent months.

We've taken a poll here which yielded a vastly different result than the one in Manchester....

The speed limit study (no matter how you add/subtract/divide/multiply) shows that under 1% of the sample study were exceeding the propsed limits.

In conclusion, I ask you - what problem is the speed limit addressing?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Ryan

In conclusion, I ask you - what problem is the speed limit addressing?

Do you mean other than the long list that has already been presented many times?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

VtSteve makes some good points, however his statement about having little respect for whiners, selfish ones at that , deserves further comment. Evenstar, in my opinion, has been reepeatedly and angrily denounced for opinions which differ from most of the posters on this forum. Her concerns echo those of many of us who feel that boating on Winni has taken on a "wild west, anything goes" atmosphere. The rancor leveled at her and others who have supported a speed limit for Winni has driven away or kept away those who may have dissenting opinions, again in my opinion. Many, many people have earnestly embraced the 45/25 speed limit as a reasonable solution, and there has been no shortage of "whiners" and melodrama in the anti speed limit camp. A few arguments/issues I've had difficulty with:

1) We should not have a speed limit because there are not enough resources to enforce them. Well in my NH town we have many many miles of road and just 1 or 2 cops to enforce speed limits. I can drive for miles and miles with little expectation of seeing a police cruiser. Does that mean we should repeal all speed limits in town? Obviously not...the speed limit alone is a deterrent for most people.

2) The arguments that a speed limit will unequivably drive business from the state . Many business owners have been proponents of the speed limit because they feel it will improve business and that said wild west atmosphere has in fact driven many power boaters away.

3) That the pro speed limit group has a monopoly on all of the melodrama in this controversy over speed limits on the lake. After the house passed the first speed limit, one objector moaned " if the old man of the mtn were still standing, he would have shed a tear today". Oh brother.

4) A poll showing that the majority of NH people are in favor of speed limits has been dismissed with a variety of specious (and angry, bitter) arguments . Our legislators in the House and Senate are characterized as having been totally bamboozled by the Winnfabs (sometimes referred to as Winncrabs, Winnfarts) crowd. One poster commented that we need to vote these hacks out. Isn't that what happened after the last election with a Senate that rejected speed limits?

5) That this law is really only a thinly disguised way of getting boats/boaters off the lake that they don't like. In reality, reasonable people and their representatives make laws all the time to restrict objectionable behavior that is felt to be inappropriate. For example, we have laws in my town that regulate dogs who bark all night. Have we enacted legislation against dogs/owners that we don't like? Call it whatever you want. And if people object to boats going 70 MPH 150' from the little put put from which they are fishing...well.

Well, enough for now, but to Evenstar, just because you've been singled out and maligned in a forum where you are the minority doesn't mean that no one hasn't noted your sincere committment to what you believe in. Keep up the good work. The speed limit will happen. Maybe people will even slow down enough to ... see the turtles.

Repeatedly, the obvious things argued were ignored. Having a speed limit will not, repeat, will not, prevent the 150' rule from being violated. There were some that finally broke down and claimed that their support for 45/25 was primarily based on getting rid of as many GFBL boats as they could. Evenstar was repeatedly making the claim that she was in constant fear of "high-speed boats" invading her 150' area, and never once (to the best of my feeble memory), complained about the lack of enforcement. She also went through some rather dubious statistical feats to try and discredit the MP speed study.

I've always contended that the major areas being cited as reason enough for the speed limit were flawed. BI's many posts regarding the NWZ being violated, sometimes at very high speeds, spoke to the complete lack of enforcement there. The 150' rule is one of the most fundamental safety laws on the lake. But according to many, it is violated constantly. I'm admitting that I'm assuming here, that in order to avoid discussions about increased MP presence and funding for enforcement, she in particular went out of her way to come up with some rather creative reasoning. I don't automatically assume that by having a speed limit it will cut down on the number of 150' violations. I base this assumption only on the fact that the vast majority of violations I've witnessed over the years through now, and other's stated posts, are done by boaters not exceeding the proposed speed limit.

The last desperation of some concluded that the tragic accident that occurred in the bay, was reason enough for the speed limit. The boat was "calculated" to be doing 28mph at night, not 25mph or less. The more crap that was thrown out regarding erosion, waves, etc... I quickly realized there were other reasons for the limit being proposed. Some admitted to it, others to this day do not.

I think the reason she was "singled out", as you put it, is not because of her position. Heck, everyone has opinions. It was the fact that she engages in behavior on the lake that many of us old timers viewed as imprudent forty years ago, let alone today. That was an opinion, so fine and fair. But to use outrageous extrapolations of data and call it statistical evidence that proves a study is flawed, totally dismiss the flag on kayak issue that I know many kayakers actually think is a good idea, and to repeatedly state opinions as fact is subject to a heated debate.

The fact that no proponents of the new law, (again, that I'm aware of), ever engaged in a discussion of the lack of enforcement or additional funding, spoke volumes as to where their stands really were on the issue. They apparently weren't scared that the new speed limit would be enforced, only that it was passed.

So no, I have no respect for whiners that will not, repeat, will not address concerns about enforcement, and will not even begin to discuss their own behavior. Many of us have been boating for decades, and know full well what the problems on the water are. The first time I had the discussion of reckless behavior on Winni was some 25 years ago, which is a couple of decades plus longer than she ever dropped her sea kayak in the lake. Her complaints almost coincided with her boat getting wet there. But instead of realizing that the laws she cites repeatedly be enforced, she spent a great deal of time supporting this new law, never really entering into a discussion as to how it would be enforced.

Statistical studies aside, I call that BS every time I see it. Those that are never wrong, rarely engage in discussion that could lead to obvious solutions. As one of the MP dudes said, you'd think Winni was total carnage during the summer. In reality, there are some boaters that need to be spanked for their actions, or just taken off the lake. So don't get all teary eyed about angry rebuttals, the total refusal to debate facts or solutions that would be obvious to most is the real issue.

The next step is already on the table. Next summer, exactly what will be done to solve the problems?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The next step is already on the table. Next summer, exactly what will be done to solve the problems?

Increased enforcement is a great idea. To bad it will never happen. It's a pipe dream. You might as well look to Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy to solve the lakes problems.

Skip posted this a while back

Just for clarification. The NHSP officers that on occasion operate motorcycles are not permanently assigned to those uints. They are regular troopers that are assigned cruisers, They supplement the cruiser on occasion with a motorcycle patrol. During inclement weather and the winter they revert to regular cruiser patrol.

Also, in case some have not heard, the Governor has made it clear he will veto any programs that have additional cost. Your average NHSP trooper earns at least double the hourly wage of a seasonal NHMP officer. After you factor in medical & retirement costs for the full time troopers you are looking at a cost of 2.5 to 3x that of the seasonal officers you arer looking to replace. In the cash strapped situatiion this State is facing during these tough economic times no one is going to authorize that kind of additional spending to supervise a bunch of recreational boaters on Winnipesaukee.

These threads have been very entertaining to read for the most part, full of fire & brimstone and and humor and angst, and untold hyperbole. But lets get back to reality for a moment.

Yes, we are all aggravated by the overcrowding that occurs one or two weekend days a week for maybe eight or ten weekends a year. We all have stories of close calls and "Captain Boneheads" galore.

But the simple fact is given the tens of thousands of boats that ply New Hampshire's inland waters every season, major accidents and deaths are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. And while the State may pass a few more regulations to satisfy a political constituency or two, there will be no new money coming for enforcement and there are no announced or planned major shakeups at New Hampshire Marine Patrol.

Try to convince the NH resident and taxpayer (and voter) caught daily in the traffic congestion on Routes 93, 95 or 101 that money and law enforcement resources needs to be diverted away from the problems they see on their commutes to babysit recreational boating on Lake Winnipesuakee!

Sorry folks, but I think a lot of you need to put this whole debate in a much better (and wider) perspective. And when you do, you will realize that speed limit or not, much of what concerns you on the big Lake will not change regardless of the final status of HB 847.

The sad but simple fact is that in the end both sides are going to be greatly disappointed with the outcome of this particular legislation.

A speed limit will have at least some deterrent effect without additional funding. Solutions that will never be implemented are not solutions.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

We've taken a poll here which yielded a vastly different result than the one in Manchester....

Now there's an unbiased statistical sampling (not). It's like polling 4 foxes and a chicken on what they'd like to have for dinner.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Now there's an unbiased statistical sampling (not). It's like polling 4 foxes and a chicken on what they'd like to have for dinner.

Why is that unbiased? Because it was on a Boating Forum on Winnipesaukee.com Forum where all members had a chance to vote?

Because it involved people that have an inkling of interest in Winnipesaukee and/or because it directly contradicts the Manchester poll?

Or because it doesn't support the agenda of the pro speed limit crowd?

(For the record, I didn't vote)

Back to my original question - What problem is the speed limit going to solve in 2009?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why is that unbiased? Because it was on a Boating Forum on Winnipesaukee.com Forum where all members had a chance to vote?

No, because this is primarily a forum for those who are against a speed limit. And as in my previous post, the rancor leveled against dissenting opinion has driven off/kept away the speed limit proponents. Chicken for dinner anyone?

[Ryan]

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;70939]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why is that unbiased? Because it was on a Boating Forum on Winnipesaukee.com Forum where all members had a chance to vote?

No, because this is primarily a forum for those who are against a speed limit. And as in my previous post, the rancor leveled against dissenting opinion has driven off/kept away the speed limit proponents. Chicken for dinner anyone.

Can you back that with fact? Or is this going to be based on your opinion?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Can you back that with fact? Or is this going to be based on your opinion?

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in mathematics or statistics to see that this is primarily a forum for the no speed limit crowd, which is why the previous poll of NH residents has far more statistical significance.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in mathematics or statistics to see that this is primarily a forum for the no speed limit crowd, which is why the previous poll of NH residents has far more statistical significance.

So, based on your opinion, a poll on a forum that represents members of the Winnipesaukee community has a lesser significance than a poll which questions NH citizens with no interest whatsoever in the lakes region?

Opinions aside, you still haven't illustrated what problem the speed limit bill is going to solve. I'll wait....

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

So, based on your opinion, a poll on a forum that represents members of the Winnipesaukee community has a lesser significance than a poll which questions NH citizens with no interest whatsoever in the lakes region?

Opinions aside, you still haven't illustrated what problem the speed limit bill is going to solve. I'll wait....

Please re-read my posts of today. Yes indeed, it has less significance. For example, if you wanted an unbiased look at alcohol issues in this country, you wouldn't poll people at a temperance meeting or your local bar. If you want an un-biased sampling of opinion about Winni speed limits, you wouldn't poll a Winnfabs meeting or this forum.
Again re-read my initial post of today...the speed limit will address the "wild west, anything goes" mentality that is driving so many people away from the lake.

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Again re-read my initial post of today...the speed limit will address the "wild west, anything goes" mentality that is driving so many people away from the lake.

I don't think that "increased boat traffic" is a good selling point of a speed limit.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

I don't think that "increased boat traffic" is a good selling point of a speed limit.

maybe you're right though one has to look at the kind of traffic....low impact, 15 HP, 150 HP, 15 MPH, 30 MPH, vs high impact, 800 HP, 70 MPH. We have a saying where I work that 95% of the complaints and problems are generated by 5% of the people. I see similar examples on Winni.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

...the speed limit will address the "wild west, anything goes" mentality that is driving so many people away from the lake.

I'm not sure what lake you boat on, but speed is not, and has never been a main factor in any accident on the lake.

The speed survey showed that 0.29% of the boats were travelling at a rate of speed greater than 45mph. That's not even 1%!!!!

This survey also doesn't account for those 0.29% that were driving recklessly....

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm not sure what lake you boat on, but speed is not, and has never been a main factor in any accident on the lake.
The speed survey showed that 0.29% of the boats were travelling at a rate of speed greater than 45mph. That's not even 1%!!!!

This survey also doesn't account for those 0.29% that were driving recklessly....

Whatever you do, don't ask any of the speed limit supporters to show evidence that excessive speed (over the proposed limits) is a main factor in any accidents on the lake. They will give one example from a night time accident a couple years ago, and that is all they have.

What one thing do a majority of the boating accidents have in common?
Here is a hint...it begins with a guy named AL...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Whatever you do, don't ask any of the speed limit supporters to show evidence that excessive speed (over the proposed limits) is a main factor in any accidents on the lake. They will give one example from a night time accident a couple years ago, and that is all they have.

What one thing do a majority of the boating accidents have in common?
Here is a hint...it begins with a guy named AL...

And that example was an estimate..............

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

...the speed limit will address the "wild west, anything goes" mentality that is driving so many people away from the lake.

What?? What statistics do you have to back this statement up? I would really be interested in a more factual statement than this. This is nothing more than a simple propeganda statement with zero merit and no basis.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by EricP

What?? What statistics do you have to back this statement up? I would really be interested in a more factual statement than this. This is nothing more than a simple propeganda statement with zero merit and no basis.

OK, and what statistics do you have to refute this statement?

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

OK, and what statistics do you have to refute this statement?

You have the burden of proof, not I. You claim the lake has this alledged "wild west, anything goes" mentality then you have to prove it. You can't just make up stuff willy nilly. You have to have proof.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by EricP

You have the burden of proof, not I. You claim the lake has this alledged "wild west, anything goes" mentality then you have to prove it. You can't just make up stuff willy nilly. You have to have proof.

OK, you say this is nothing more than a propeganda (sic) statement...what do you want? A recorded statement from a GFBL boater who yelled from the top of his lungs "Yee Hah, this is the wild west" while traveling through the entrance to Winter Harbor at 70 MPH on Aug 2nd, 2006? Get real.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

OK, you say this is nothing more than a propeganda (sic) statement...what do you want? A recorded statement from a GFBL boater who yelled from the top of his lungs "Yee Hah, this is the wild west" while traveling through the entrance to Winter Harbor at 70 MPH on Aug 2nd, 2006? Get real.

I'd like you to not make statements to further your opinion that are off the chart ridiculous

[Resident 2B]

Turtle Boy,

If you have any boating experience on Lake Winnipesaukee, you clearly realize how wrong and deceptive your "wild west, anything goes" statement really is. Almost every boater on the lake respects the rules, the safety of other boaters, the 150' rule and the No Wake Zones. However, there are a few boaters that are "Capt. Boneheads" that have less than appropriate respect for the rules. These folks are a small minority, but the real and big problem.

If your cause is to educate and eliminate this small minority of "Captain Boneheads" you will find total and complete agreement from the opposition side of the speed limit issue. This is the real safety issue and every boater on the lake knows this. However, if you have other intentions, then keep up your trolling.

R2B

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Turtle Boy,

If you have any boating experience on Lake Winnipesaukee, you clearly realize how wrong and deceptive your "wild west, anything goes" statement really is. Almost every boater on the lake respects the rules, the safety of other boaters, the 150' rule and the No Wake Zones. However, there are a few boaters that are "Capt. Boneheads" that have less than appropriate respect for the rules. These folks are a small minority, but the real and big problem.

If your cause is to educate and eliminate this small minority of "Captain Boneheads" you will find total and complete agreement from the opposition side of the speed limit issue. This is the real safety issue and every boater on the lake knows this. However, if you have other intentions, then keep up your trolling.

R2B

If trolling means holding people accountable for their statements expressed on this forum, then...guilty as charged. And I rest my case that this forum is not in the least bit representative of a true cross section of the Winni boating population. goodnight (and slow down, maybe you'll spot a turtle or two).

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

If trolling means holding people accountable for their statements expressed on this forum, then...guilty as charged. And I rest my case that this forum is not in the least bit representative of a true cross section of the Winni boating population. goodnight (and slow down, maybe you'll spot a turtle or two).

This forum clearly is a cross section of all people with an interest in life on and around the lake. We have had a lively discussion from good people on both sides of a highly charged issue. Although at times, people, including myself, stepped over the line, the discussion, for the most part had excellent representation from both sides of this issue.

For someone who joined this forum within the last week, with almost all posts looking start arguments with other posters, I must question your intentions. Your posts look like the posts of a troll to me. I see no real effort to hold people accountable on your behalf. It looks like pure trolling to me, but to be fair, that is not my call.

For the record, I do not drink coffee, so do not mention your cute little decaf statement to me. I also know a real turtle when I meet one, and unless the turtles have signifacantly lowered their standards recently, you are a trutle in your definition only.

YBYSAIM!

R2B

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I also know a real turtle when I meet one, and unless the turtles have signifacantly lowered their standards recently, you are a trutle in your definition only.

YBYSAIM!

R2B

I vaguely remember that I too am a Turtle You bet'cha.

Since we're both turtles, who is going to pick up the next round?

By the way, it seems someone has tried to make their own definition of trolling and flooding. Do you think they fully comprehend the forum guidelines?

For Islander. It has been shown that unsafe operation on the Lake is illegal. Unreasonable speed is unsafe and therefore illegal. You give it a rest - it won't change no matter how many times you say it. We wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea would we?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

All I ask is that you review any basic statistics/polling reference. Boy, they say the Winnfabs crowd is angry and has no sense of humor. Have you considered switching to decaf?

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Again, if flooding means holding people accountable for their statements expressed on this forum...guilty as charged. And as before , this forum is not representative of the Winni boating population in general. So, goodnight, and slow down...maybe you'll see a turtle or two.

Who is using this poll on this forum for anything other than reference? I used it earlier to say that IN MY OPINION, the forum represents users of the lake. No, not ALL users of the lake, but again, IN MY OPINION, all users of the forum use the lake.

Regarding your accountability thing...you come on here trying to hold us accountable for our statements? How about you apply that to yourself, and explain the "wild west" thing. Thanks in advance.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

For Islander. It has been shown that unsafe operation on the Lake is illegal. Unreasonable speed is unsafe and therefore illegal.

Where has this been shown?

How many tickets have been passed out for "unreasonable speed"?

Do we know of even a boat stop, or a warning, for "unreasonable speed"?

Can a boat operators drivers license be effected by an "unreasonable speed" conviction?

The legislature visited boat speed in 2006 and failed to enact a limit of any kind. That displays "legislative intent" that no speed, by itself, is unlawful.

If unsafe operation is illegal why do we need all those other regulations? Does that mean we do not need safe passage, bwi, night lighting etc.? Are they already covered?

[Islander]

Let's ask the state to eliminate all those hard to understand boating regulations, and we can go with "unsafe operation". That one law covers it all.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Where has this been shown?

How many tickets have been passed out for "unreasonable speed"?

Do we know of even a boat stop, or a warning, for "unreasonable speed"?

Can a boat operators drivers license be effected by an "unreasonable speed" conviction?

The legislature visited boat speed in 2006 and failed to enact a limit of any kind. That displays "legislative intent" that no speed, by itself, is unlawful.

If unsafe operation is illegal why do we need all those other regulations? Does that mean we do not need safe passage, bwi, night lighting etc.? Are they already covered?

Why should a boat operators drivers license be effected by an unreasonable speed conviction or by a boating speeding ticket when this bill becomes law in 2009.......totally asinine IMHO.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

If trolling means holding people accountable for their statements expressed on this forum, then...guilty as charged. And I rest my case that this forum is not in the least bit representative of a true cross section of the Winni boating population. goodnight (and slow down, maybe you'll spot a turtle or two).

Based on WHAT?!?! Does Don screen the people that sign up? NO! What case have you presented that even approaches anything other than rhetoric and hearsay. All you do is speak in cute metaphor and you have offered no substance to this discussion.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in mathematics or statistics to see that this is primarily a forum for the no speed limit crowd, which is why the previous poll of NH residents has far more statistical significance.

Funny how people see things different.How about maybe it represents how the people that use this lake really feel and not those who have never been in a boat.The numbers speak volumes,especially from where they are derived.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in mathematics or statistics to see that this is primarily a forum for the no speed limit crowd, which is why the previous poll of NH residents has far more statistical significance.

We post here because we use the lake. This forum is for ALL who use the lake. It just so happens that more people who frequent this forum are against the speed limit. Which to me means that more people frequent the lake are against it.

Why do people who never boat on Winnipesaukee have more say than those of us who do?

This is exactly why I have a problem with my local representative. She had never been on Winni, and had no intentions to do so. Heck, her region is the Concord area. So who was she representing when she voted in favor of HB847?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

We post here because we use the lake. This forum is for ALL who use the lake. It just so happens that more people who frequent this forum are against the speed limit. Which to me means that more people frequent the lake are against it.

Interesting theory but statistically flawed...see my previous post...if you want a valid, statistically neutral opinion about alcohol use in this country, don't go to a temperence meeting or to your local bar. If you want the same for speed limits, don't go to this forum or to a Winnfabs meeting

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Interesting theory but statistically flawed...see my previous post...if you want a valid, statistically neutral opinion about alcohol use in this country, don't go to a temperence meeting or to your local bar. If you want the same for speed limits, don't go to this forum or to a Winnfabs meeting

I agree with you in theory...but this is about people who USE the lake. The forum members here USE the lake. The speed limit would apply to people who USE the lake. Why do people who do NOT use the lake care either way about a speed limit?

And what's with the "wild west" thing? Is it really that bad on the lake? I think not.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I agree with you in theory...but this is about people who USE the lake. The forum members here USE the lake. The speed limit would apply to people who USE the lake. Why do people who do NOT use the lake care either way about a speed limit?

And what's with the "wild west" thing? Is it really that bad on the lake? I think not.

please consult any basic reference on polling and you will understand why this forum could be no more valid than polling Kentucky or Oregon alone about who should be the next president.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Interesting theory but statistically flawed...see my previous post...if you want a valid, statistically neutral opinion about alcohol use in this country, don't go to a temperence meeting or to your local bar. If you want the same for speed limits, don't go to this forum or to a Winnfabs meeting

If this forum were entirely filled with members who oppose speed limits, then you'd have a valid point. But it is not. It is a forum comprised of members of the Lakes Region and surrounding commumities, so your comparisons and metaphors are illogical and false.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

If this forum were entirely filled with members who oppose speed limits, then you'd have a valid point. But it is not. It is a forum comprised of members of the Lakes Region and surrounding commumities, so your comparisons and metaphors are illogical and false.

Ryan please see my post from 4:05 PM...a poll derived entirely from a single forum violates all accepted basic tenets and fundamentals of statistics, polling and sampling error. Any statitition or pollster will tell you a poll of only this forum would have zero validity.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Ryan please see my post from 4:05 PM...a poll derived entirely from a single forum violates all accepted basic tenets and fundamentals of statistics, polling and sampling error. Any statitition or pollster will tell you a poll of only this forum would have zero validity.

Since we're just going to reference prior posts, please see Wolfboro Baja's post from above.

Unfortunately, this has been hashed out over and over again, and you're not going to win in this crowd.

So, let's move on to our 0.29% of reckless boaters that are going to be scooped up and moved off the lake in 2009!!!!

The thoughts of mass safety are almost palpable!!!!

[Turtle Boy]

[QUOTE=Ryan;70966]Since we're just going to reference prior posts, please see Wolfboro Baja's post from above.

Unfortunately, this has been hashed out over and over again, and you're not going to win in this crowd.

At last, something we can both agree upon.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The thoughts of mass safety are almost palpable!!!!

I'm not sure about the thoughts of mass safety being palpable but the thoughts of mass tranquility are very palpable.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Ryan please see my post from 4:05 PM...a poll derived entirely from a single forum violates all accepted basic tenets and fundamentals of statistics, polling and sampling error. Any statitition or pollster will tell you a poll of only this forum would have zero validity.

I've read all your posts today so please don't ask me to read them again. Ok so from your posts you seem intelligent enough to realize that your analogy of polling a bar for alcohol laws is ludicrous and silly. Alcoholism affects millions, actually just about everyone. Boating on this lake affects those who boat on this lake. Polling people in Manchester who do not use this lake or do not intend to use this lake is, in one succinct word stupid. Polling a website dedicated to this lake and the users of this lake carries far more validity IMO. Please tell me, without using metaphor, how and why you disagree with this. Keep in mind The Lake Winnipesaukee Forum is read by, posted on and frequented by lovers and users of Lake Winnipesaukee. Boaters, Kayakers, Waterskiers, Swimmers, Sailors, Residents, Vacationers, etc. etc. I would argue that this site directly reflects a cross section of the make up of the users of this lake. So are you suggesting that only the Speed Limit opponents are the ones who post on this site? I suggest that based on the poll done here and all of the discussion here that this forum, again a direct cross section of the populous of the lake, is largely against a speed limit. So why is it that the non-users of this lake are telling the users of this lake how we should use our lake?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I would argue that this site directly reflects a cross section of the make up of the users of this lake.

Do you have any objective data to this point or is it just your opinion? Again, any statitician or pollster would agree that a poll from a single forum like this has zero validity. How about if we polled members of the Lake's Region Conservation Trust or NH Lakes Assoc.? Their results would be equally biased. Why...because people of like opinions tend to belong to forums reflecting their views.

So, that being said, I've read in these pages that our Reps. and Senators are "hacks" that should be voted out of office, a poll of NH voters asking what they feel is right for their lakes has no relevence, and seen rather vicious attacks to anyone with dissenting opinions contrary to those prevailing on this site. Yet the bill passed despite the, what was it, 85 % of people on this forum's poll who feel a speed limit is unnecessary? Maybe it's a great big conspiracy???

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Do you have any objective data to this point or is it just your opinion? Again, any statitician or pollster would agree that a poll from a single forum like this has zero validity. How about if we polled members of the Lake's Region Conservation Trust or NH Lakes Assoc.? Their results would be equally biased. Why...because people of like opinions tend to belong to forums reflecting their views.

So, that being said, I've read in these pages that our Reps. and Senators are "hacks" that should be voted out of office, a poll of NH voters asking what they feel is right for their lakes has no relevence, and seen rather vicious attacks to anyone with dissenting opinions contrary to those prevailing on this site. Yet the bill passed despite the, what was it, 85 % of people on this forum's poll who feel a speed limit is unnecessary? Maybe it's a great big conspiracy???

Originally Posted by Ryan

Please see Wolfboro Baja's post from above.

Apparently, you have not read much into these pages, as just as recently as Monday, there was a discussion surrounding some of the Op Ed pieces published by the pro speed limit force. I suggest you take a look at that discussion before you start tossing around "conspiracy" theories...

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Apparently, you have not read much into these pages, as just as recently as Monday, there was a discussion surrounding some of the Op Ed pieces published by the pro speed limit force. I suggest you take a look at that discussion before you start tossing around "conspiracy" theories...

yes indeed I have read the trashing of Sandy Helve articles and that now even letters to the editor need to have annotated references. Oh well, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

yes indeed I have read the trashing of Sandy Helve articles and that now even letters to the editor need to have annotated references. Oh well, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

The debate was over the questionable content in her op ed piece.

Her background came into question well after.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

yes indeed I have read the trashing of Sandy Helve articles and that now even letters to the editor need to have annotated references. Oh well, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

And Global Warming gonna get you before Al or Speedo GFBL does.


Boooooo


Just think, Winni will be part of the ocean, and the boats will get larger and faster. Kinda skeery isn't it?

[ITD]

Hmmm, Turtle Boy has his first 13 posts in 7 hours all looking to pick a fight. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a troll, but he is pretty close. As soon as I can figure out that ignore feature, I think I'll make use of it.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

yes indeed I have read the trashing of Sandy Helve articles and that now even letters to the editor need to have annotated references. Oh well, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

Yo Turtle Boy,

If the proponents did not make up "facts", no one would question the source of their numbers. However, this whole issue of 'speed limits needed to improve safety on the lake' is a "house of cards". That is why knowledgeable people question Winnfabs "facts". In almost every case, the "facts" have been fiction.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time! (This is not an original statement, but I do not remember who said it first.) When I see, read or hear something that I know is untrue or a big stretch of the facts, I ask questions. I am sure that is what the others are doing as well. That is what knowledgeable folks should be doing.

I hope this explains the behavior. No one is attacking any messenger, but they have every right to seek the truth.

R2B

[Jeti]

This law has been a big waste of time and is almost impossible to enforce. Lets be real here people.. We live in a state where huge SUVs drive inches from Massive Walmart Eighteen wheelers doing Eighty mile per hour.. Legally......... For gods sake, Now they want a forty five mile limit on open water...

Pass the Weed Law, do something useless state reps.......

Waste of tax payers money.. in my opinion...

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Maybe it's a great big conspiracy???

Then, again, perhaps someone is fine-tuning their spin skills, in preparation for the November election spinathon.

Then, again, perhaps the second string has been called to duty since a certain poster is noticeable absent from the ongoing diatribe.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Do you have any objective data to this point or is it just your opinion? Again, any statitician or pollster would agree that a poll from a single forum like this has zero validity. How about if we polled members of the Lake's Region Conservation Trust or NH Lakes Assoc.? Their results would be equally biased. Why...because people of like opinions tend to belong to forums reflecting their views.

Ummmm yeah it's my opinion. Didn't I make that crystal clear when I said:

I would argue that this site directly reflects a cross section of the make up of the users of this lake.

Did I really need to add the "in my opinion" statement???

So it's pretty obvious that you skimmed my post but you didn't really read it. Why does this poll have Zero validity. Is that YOUR opinion. Point me to the statistician that tells me that the Manchester Poll had more or ANY validity to it. This forum brings LIKE MINDED individuals together. People who LIKE the lake. Not people who like to go fast in fast boats. If you even read one tenth of the posts on this forum you would know that most of the opponents here on this site DO NOT own Go Fast Boats. So much for your theories and cute analogies. I'd say you're back to square one. Good try though.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Ummmm yeah it's my opinion. Didn't I make that crystal clear when I said:

I would argue that this site directly reflects a cross section of the make up of the users of this lake.

Did I really need to add the "in my opinion" statement???

So it's pretty obvious that you skimmed my post but you didn't really read it. Why does this poll have Zero validity. Is that YOUR opinion. Point me to the statistician that tells me that the Manchester Poll had more or ANY validity to it. This forum brings LIKE MINDED individuals together. People who LIKE the lake. Not people who like to go fast in fast boats. If you even read one tenth of the posts on this forum you would know that most of the opponents here on this site DO NOT own Go Fast Boats. So much for your theories and cute analogies. I'd say you're back to square one. Good try though.

All I ask is that you review any basic statistics/polling reference. Boy, they say the Winnfabs crowd is angry and has no sense of humor. Have you considered switching to decaf?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Interesting theory but statistically flawed...see my previous post...if you want a valid, statistically neutral opinion about alcohol use in this country, don't go to a temperence meeting or to your local bar. If you want the same for speed limits, don't go to this forum or to a Winnfabs meeting

I agree with your points in theory, BUT.....if someone's going to do a poll about speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, I would AT LEAST expect the people being polled to be FIRST asked if they have EVER operated a powerboat and, if so, have they ever operated said boat on Lake Winnipesaukee. I see no point in asking the average person on the street with no boating experience if there is a need for a speed limit on the lake.

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Well in my NH town we have many many miles of road and just 1 or 2 cops to enforce speed limits. I can drive for miles and miles with little expectation of seeing a police cruiser.

You certainly don't live in Moultonborough - they've got a handful they can lend you.

It will be interesting to see how much enforcement goes into the law. As discussed once or twice (or more...), accurately getting a boat speed isn't as easy as a cop driving around with his radar on. If the goal of this is to make the lake safer, they'll be out looking for people during the peak boating times in all the usual areas. If they're looking to get everyone who's violating the law, they'll be up bright and early to get the bass boats that go cruising by my house with just their prop in the water.

For the record, I'm against the limit although not really for my personal gain. My jet ski will break the law, but it's pretty much in the margin of error range of the limit and I'm not doing that all that often. I think there are more issues with the 150' rule and general Capt. inattention. The proponents of the law will say that at least the boneheads are going slower. I guess that's a win for them but I say that they're still boneheads and they're still captaining a multi-ton vessel.