Proposed Law

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others. I didn't care what kind of boat it was that ran up on an island this year on Lake George, but what caused it. Same old things. I don't remember what year it was, many, many years ago, a boat in Merideth Bay ran aground and hit a house well onshore. The driver was drunk.

Something tells me drunks don't pay attention to speed limits, or much anything else for that matter.

[parrothead]

There is a lot of concern of what might happen. The concerns voiced can happen, but aren't very likely. I am concerned that my house may get hit by lightening, but I know it "most" likely won't happen. There are far more likely things that will happen to you while at the lake than these. And the concerns that have been voiced could still happen after a speed limit is enacted.

As I stated before I understand the point of view of both sides of the speed limit debate. I hold no stake in either side, because our boat runs at around 30mph, and we don't go out after dark. But I still don't think a speed limit is going to provide the dividends that WINNFABs hopes for. I still fervently believe that the main "problem" that affects the lake is congestion. And ignorance of the current laws. Will the trailered in GF boater not go to the lake, probably? Will a family decide to trailer their boat to the "New and Improved" Winnipesaukee, maybe? But the boater that owns a house and a boat on the lake is not going to move just because of the speed limit. So I don't think that the congestion is going to get better because of this speed limit. Hopefully the fact that everyone needs a boating certificate this year will help with the ignorance issue.

As for the accident that just occurred and the accident in VT. A drunk boater is not going to care about a speed limit. Not saying that Erica was drunk, because I don' know. The pro-speed limit crowd just keeps fixating on the speed of the boat. But it is not as cut and dry, and other factors contributed to this accident. And some of those factors are more likely the cause of the accident than the rate of speed. And when the investigation is complete we will find out the contributing factors in the Diamond Island accident. Speed may be one of the factors, but it may or may not be the cause.

BI, I commend your support of Summer Camps. Some of my fondest memories are of the times that I spend on the lake at camp. But congestion is the reason for curtailed boating by camps. I still don't think that the speed limit is going to change the number of boats on the lake. They will be going slower, but still there none the less. And due to congestion, the camps will still limit the boating programs to when the lake is less busy. Just my opinion, and I know you disagree. I just don't think that slower speeds are going to scare away enough boats to make a difference.

So I still don't think that this proposed law is going make a difference in the long run. Enforcement would make a difference, but we all know that isn't going to happen. So it is up to the operators to "police" their actions, which hasn't always worked. The current laws are "self policed" due to not enough LEOs around. BWI, 150' violations, NWZ infractions, as well as others happen all the time. Why would the speed limit be different? Just my two cents.

[Turtle Boy]

VtSteve: "Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO".

I have never pointed out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held....only the driver. The driver in this case was an outspoken critic of any one who wanted in any way to interfere with her fun and freedom. Then factor in a family's multi-million dollar stake in said scenario.
Now present her as the champion of all the "little people who just want to enjoy their boats who are being made unwelcome by those mean,rich, lakefront property owners".
Everyone can feel for the victims and the driver. It's a tragic situation especially for the Beaudoin and Blizzard families. No one questions that.
As far as the pond scum statement...oh no please take it back. Seriously though it comes across badly by a minority of posters like yourself who make the driver and her family a forbidden topic on a forum like this such that dissenting opinion might be stifled. It's kind of like a kid who is hiding behind his mother's skirt only to pop his head out from behind now and then and stick out his tongue. When someone sticks theirs out at the kid, he yells "Mommy, he just hurt my feelings". Well I'm not one to bring in the web master because you violated forum rules by posting personal insults, but I do want to point out to you that your aggressive if not intimidating replies with phrases like "you ought to shut your mouth" and the above one seriously diminish any intellectual impact you hope to put forth. As far as the later comment that speed limits don't slow down drunks...talk to any police officer who has pulled over a drunk. Often these people are going less than the speed limit...these guys don't want to call attention to themselves and risk a DUI. Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

TB- The problem is that with or without a speed limit, a drunk is still a drunk. They are breaking the law (a much more serious charge than a few points on a license and a small fine) in the first place so why do you think that a speed limit will control them?

Yes, some drunks slow down as not to be noticed. These are probably the slightly innebriated whereas the more liquored up are a bit more brazen, bold and are more likely to show off behind the wheel of a boat.

A speed limit won't prevent drunks from doing what they do, which is drive drunk. It is the consequences of the drinking, not the speed that are the root of the problem.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by flyry49

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

This topic has been debated for years on this forum. Read some of the older threads and you will have a better understanding of why some people want a limit and some people don't.

The only good argument for a speed limit, thus far, has been from Bear Islander. He pointed out that boats that are driven from the lake, can't have accidents here. It's valid... Terrible reason to pass a law, but it's a valid point.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

You do realize that the boat that was in the accident is not a GFBL, right? It's just a big, quiet, family, day-boat with limited overnight accomodations, a head, and a galley, that barely exceeds the 45 MPH day limit. The speed limit will do absolutely nothing to drive boats like that from the lake. It ENCOURAGES them.

When you consider the boat was a 2008 model and the season is still young, I bet that boat was not used for many weekends at all.

If you feel threatened by boats, living on an island is really a bad idea.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

VtSteve: "Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO".

I have never pointed out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held....only the driver. The driver in this case was an outspoken critic of any one who wanted in any way to interfere with her fun and freedom. Then factor in a family's multi-million dollar stake in said scenario.
Now present her as the champion of all the "little people who just want to enjoy their boats who are being made unwelcome by those mean,rich, lakefront property owners".
Everyone can feel for the victims and the driver. It's a tragic situation especially for the Beaudoin and Blizzard families. No one questions that.
As far as the pond scum statement...oh no please take it back. Seriously though it comes across badly by a minority of posters like yourself who make the driver and her family a forbidden topic on a forum like this such that dissenting opinion might be stifled. It's kind of like a kid who is hiding behind his mother's skirt only to pop his head out from behind now and then and stick out his tongue. When someone sticks theirs out at the kid, he yells "Mommy, he just hurt my feelings". Well I'm not one to bring in the web master because you violated forum rules by posting personal insults, but I do want to point out to you that your aggressive if not intimidating replies with phrases like "you ought to shut your mouth" and the above one seriously diminish any intellectual impact you hope to put forth. As far as the later comment that speed limits don't slow down drunks...talk to any police officer who has pulled over a drunk. Often these people are going less than the speed limit...these guys don't want to call attention to themselves and risk a DUI. Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

In my mind, anyone involved in an accident and injured, is a victim. You think your positions are bolstered by the linking the driver with her positions that you don't agree with. I would agree if the problems on the lake had anything to do with those positions, IMO, they do not. But your positions have to be continually massaged and tweaked to make up for the lack of relevance.

My positions are only changed if there is supportive evidence that shows my thinking is wrong. If there are accidents galore at high speeds, and the vast majority are a particular group or boat class, I'd have no alternative but to include the facts in my decision making. You and BD take a different route altogether. Accidents involving PWC's or smaller runabouts are ignored, drinking is only beaten to death if the accident involved a GFBL boater. They are the Party Hearty crowd, nobody else is. I have witnessed a far higher percentage of the Party Hearty crowd amongst smaller bowriders and such than the GFBL crowd. And as Dave R so aptly put, the recent accident did not involve a GFBL boat. More aptly defined as an express cruiser. If it was someone from Bear that was in a 32' Carver, we wouldn't be having this type of discussion.

Between you and BD, your continued distortion of the facts in many cases, re-defining of terms, and obvious disgust in devoting your sole attention to a specific group leaves you two with no useful positions. It's similar in many respects to people that don't like loud motorcycles. Their tone builds to a feverish pitch, such that any and all facts outside of their limited field of visions distorts reality to a degree of uselessness.

You and I both know that the public stands and position of the driver involved made it irresistible for you two not to comment in such an I Told You So manner. I'm sure you have even hoped that the facts would be the boat was doing 70 when the accident took place. That's bitter for sure, and it seems to fit given the posts on this board. You've tried to portray a milder form of bias and at least make it Appear that you want civility and thoughtful discussion. My view is that you're just more politically-minded than BD is, who is more to the point with his prejudiced view.

But since you just can't bear to look at this accident for whatever it is, without referencing political positions held, I just can't offer any opinion of you two other than what I've posted. It's certainly not based on your SL views, I have a lot of respect for others that share your view of that particular issue. Some close to the family had requested that personal issues be off limits for now. The point was well taken by most posters here. It does not add to the discussion, is not particularly germane to the accident at hand, and is mean and spiteful to those suffering from this tragedy. My personal references to both you and BD on this board, reflect my assessment of your posts here, some of which are mean and vindictive, and reveal your characters most of all. They show no humanity, no respect, and most of all, point out that your agenda on a particular issue is far more important to you two than anyone or anything.

Maybe others on this board can point out to me that I'm way off base, and should do dome soul-searching to find my way. But for now, my characterization of you two remains as stated.

[flyry49]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First, you are assuming a speed limit is only about safety. I support the speed limit but safety is not my first concern. Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake. Talk to any camp director about the situation on the lake and will get a totally different take on the problem. The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports HB847. That is good enough for me.

Winnipesaukee is one of the few lakes in the area that do not already have restrictions. As time passes more and more high performance boats will be forced to the fewer and fewer lakes that allow unrestricted speed. I do not want this lake to be "the destination" for high performance boats.

The growing tendency toward bigger, faster and more horsepower is increasing pollution on the lake. The water quality, particularly in our bays, is dropping. We need to move toward less horsepower, less wake, less speed, less pollution. Winnipesaukee is a community drinking water supply.

Tourism has been negatively effected. Local businesses complain that the situation on the lake is keeping away families. Kayakers and other small boaters complain they have been forced off the lake by congestion and high speed. Several large marinas on the lake support speed limits as well. They make their living by selling and servicing boats, when they tell you there is a problem it's time to listen.

As to safety, and your question. You admit there is a problem in certain places at certain times. It would be difficult to have a speed limit that was only on weekends or in some parts of the lake. However I would support a reasonable compromise along those lines.

There was a lot of talk about an exception for the broads, but the opposition took a "no limits" attitude so a compromise solution was not possible.

my biggest disagreement is when your trying to argue that businesses around the area are hurting because of performance boats, the only type i can think of that may be hurting are those who focus sales on kayaks and paddle boats... what your missing is the majority of businesses that benefit from performance boats, remember these people are the people with money and they come up from all over and spend it here. and when i say performance boaters I'm talking about boats capable of going over 45 mph. i myself have a 20 foot 1979 slicraft than can hit 50 mph. so there are PLENTY of boats on the lake that will be affected by this and not in a good way

another disagreement i have is when you say several large marinas are in favor of this bill. I do know a couple that possibly are but the majority of their business is cabin cruisers that just plow through the water and wont be affected by this. i have worked at a marina for 5 years we store over 400 boats and i can tell you right now maybe 10-15 of them cant do over 45 mph I have talked to many customers about this bill and more than half tell me they will take their business elsewhere if this bill passes, big loss in revenue for the state.

when you talk about the camp directors yes you are talking about safety because that is "what your telling me" they're reason to stay off the lake

my last concern is about pollution. these "performance" boats don't run wide open all day long, in fact well less than half the time. gas is so expensive now most people cant afford to. i was at the gas dock for 3 years and i can tell you right now cabin cruisers go through way more gas than "performance" boats

If there haven't been any speed linked accidents during the day on the lake why is there a threat posed? are they speeding too close to you, is the 150 foot rule not far enough?

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Dave R

You do realize that the boat that was in the accident is not a GFBL, right? It's just a big, quiet, family, day-boat with limited overnight accommodations, a head, and a galley, that barely exceeds the 45 MPH day limit. The speed limit will do absolutely nothing to drive boats like that from the lake. It ENCOURAGES them.

When you consider the boat was a 2008 model and the season is still young, I bet that boat was not used for many weekends at all.

If you feel threatened by boats, living on an island is really a bad idea.

It might come as a surprise to you, but Google the attempts to exceed 61mph in this Formula.

Or read this test result of an equivalent Formula 37,

On a 94-degree day, the boat reached 58 mph at 5,100 rpm on GPS. Our lead test driver thought the boat with Mercury Bravo Threes may have been a little underpropped and with the right set could have topped 60 mph. Formula likely picked props that were best for overall performance and not just for top speed.

This is so typical of Formula and other GFBLs to look for that extra 3 mph, when it is so unnecessary to push something so big on this lake.

Or worse yet for us boaters on Winni,

"It has manners like a smaller boat but it's like driving a condo around,"

The larger and more comfortable a boat, the more insulated you are from this lakes many igneous realities. (See the "condo" reference.)

Encourages?

Yes, we will probably see more GFBLs this year. With the possible exception of member Cal, they are accustomed to trading gasoline for thrills. Some will want to rub our noses in the new law by showboating their skills at the excess speeds allowed this season.

Now go ask someone living on your state's Long Lake if they feel threatened.

Expect residents on Long Lake's shores to disagree with that "bad idea". You don't even have to go to an islander to ask.

Neither you or VtSteve live on Winni. Do you hide personal concerns that Winni's worst offenders might trailer to your own states' waters to ruin your concept of paradise?

VtSteve writes,

That's what bothers me the most. Such a transparent agenda was masked by safety. A cowardly fight against a group of people.

As long as A.I.S. is used to excuse bad boaters, we can never know the benefits to boating safety this new law could provide.

VtSteve also wrote,

I'm sure you have even hoped that the facts would be the boat was doing 70 when the accident took place. That's bitter for sure, and it seems to fit given the posts on this board.

That is a totally unfair accusation, when my own opinion of terminal speed is 30. You are accusing many New Hampshire members with the remark, "some will hope for 70."

I'm starting to feel like Evenstar.

[VtSteve]

Hmmm, 30 ey? I was out last night, a beautiful night for a change. A pontoon boat, a small bowrider, wandering around the bay, no lights. Two other boats heading for me, but slightly off to port, stated to head directly towards me as though I was their waypoint

There were several GFBL boats out and about last night, as well as quite a few cruisers. Except for the cruiser wakes, no issues at all. Kind of a typical scene over here, and from the various boards I'm on, many other places. There are those that simply not mature enough to handle any boat, and those that do stupid things in GFBL boats.

I drove last night according to conditions. It was bright enough, calm enough, beautiful. On an otherwise perfect night, I went between 10mph and 20mph due to captain bonehead issues. Take your GFBL bias and try to relate to something useful. Your comments on a Formula 37 are immature, irrelevant, and take place when there are many dangerous 25mph boaters endangering the public.

Obviously a personal issue for you, and you even take offense at the suggestion that AIS be used to point out accident issues. If your own opinion is the boat was going 30, what does that mean in your world? You hate them more for having money and piloting a 37' boat? 60mph is neither a GF or a BL boat generally. I doubt many would want a 37' express type cruiser making loud exhaust noise.

Occasionally, your real opinions come out, and they revel you really have nothing to pick on but those type of boats. Now we have to ban Cobalt bowriders in NY due to their driving up on the mainland, and breaking the speed limit and distance limits as well. Guess what? AIS again. Perhaps we could get the drunks to only have boats you like, and limit them to 10mph. That wouldn't have aided me last night, they still would aim for me and have no lights on.

Yes, I did radio them in.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by flyry49

my biggest disagreement is when your trying to argue that businesses around the area are hurting because of performance boats, the only type i can think of that may be hurting are those who focus sales on kayaks and paddle boats... what your missing is the majority of businesses that benefit from performance boats, remember these people are the people with money and they come up from all over and spend it here. and when i say performance boaters I'm talking about boats capable of going over 45 mph. i myself have a 20 foot 1979 slicraft than can hit 50 mph. so there are PLENTY of boats on the lake that will be affected by this and not in a good way

another disagreement i have is when you say several large marinas are in favor of this bill. I do know a couple that possibly are but the majority of their business is cabin cruisers that just plow through the water and wont be affected by this. i have worked at a marina for 5 years we store over 400 boats and i can tell you right now maybe 10-15 of them cant do over 45 mph I have talked to many customers about this bill and more than half tell me they will take their business elsewhere if this bill passes, big loss in revenue for the state.

when you talk about the camp directors yes you are talking about safety because that is "what your telling me" they're reason to stay off the lake

my last concern is about pollution. these "performance" boats don't run wide open all day long, in fact well less than half the time. gas is so expensive now most people cant afford to. i was at the gas dock for 3 years and i can tell you right now cabin cruisers go through way more gas than "performance" boats

If there haven't been any speed linked accidents during the day on the lake why is there a threat posed? are they speeding too close to you, is the 150 foot rule not far enough?

I was answering your original question as to why people want a daytime speed limit. I gave you the answer to your question. You may not find them valid, however we do have reasons and data.

There have been many daytime accidents involving speed. Don't believe the opposition rhetoric. They only want to count boat to boat accidents, in daytime, at speeds PROVEN to be over 45 mph and that do not involve alcohol. The problem is very few accidents have a specific speed attributed to them by the Marine Patrol. Without a number over 45, once again, an accident just doesn't count in their opinion.

The list of HB847 supporters is not just kayak and canoe dealers. Some of the largest hotels and restaurants and tourist businesses are on the list.

And the list also contains marinas that deal in "regular boats" like Trexlers. Smart businesses realize there is a lot more money coming in from families than from the performance boat crowd. When families are afraid to go out on the water, the lake economy is in serious trouble.

I don't understand how you can discount the complaints of the local children's camps so easily. It makes me think you original question was not really a question, and you are against speed limits no matter who gets hurt.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There have been many daytime accidents involving speed. Don't believe the opposition rhetoric. They only want to count boat to boat accidents, in daytime, at speeds PROVEN to be over 45 mph and that do not involve alcohol. The problem is very few accidents have a specific speed attributed to them by the Marine Patrol. Without a number over 45, once again, an accident just doesn't count in their opinion.

You keep posting that fallacy and continue to refuse to back it up. When I compared the article you posted from a business magazine claiming NH was not a safe place to boat because of all the reported accidents in 2006, I presented the stats from the Marine Patrol, offered by Woodsy, from the same year as quoted in the article 2006 and I even broke them down for you but you certainly can do that for yourself. There was a single accident involving a craft above 45mph on Lake Winnipesaukee and it involved a PWC not a High Performance boat and did not involve any other vessel.

So I ask you again, what daytime accidents involving speed are you talking about?

One of your supporters claimed to have found 47 speed related accidents in the NH 2006 stats and when I asked her to identify them (the information is even on a spreadsheet so she could have just made not of the number) and we are still waiting.

The fear mongering continues.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
I don't understand how you can discount the complaints of the local children's camps so easily. It makes me think you original question was not really a question, and you are against speed limits no matter who gets hurt.

Even according to your own words, speeding boats is not the problem near children's camps...

Your response to flyry49
Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake

So the problem is congestion and "confusion" ...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address. As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address... As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!...

Two points:

HB 847 indeed will address "safe passage" (RSA 270-D:2 VI (a) 6) and a host of other general operating guidelines by making a conviction for those offenses reportable to the NHDMV, not only on Winni but for the temporary two years any public water body.

Secondly, at no time has the Director or any official spokesperson for Safety claimed that enforcement of this temporary section will result in diverting crews. There are a number of times that the oft suggested two officers are routinely manning a craft and they can easily incorporate occasional radar pickets into their routine patrol. Additionally, the addition of radar will authorize the NHMP to apply for and implement "radar grants" which will allow them the opportunity to employ additional patrols while not requiring an increase in their original budget.

Land based law enforcement officers have made radar a regular part of their daily routine. The NHMP will easily be able to incorporate the same principles.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Skip
HB 847 indeed will address "safe passage" (RSA 270-D:2 VI (a) 6) and a host of other general operating guidelines by making a conviction for those offenses reportable to the NHDMV, not only on Winni but for the temporary two years any public water body.

How is making a conviction for violationg HB 847 reportable to the RMV and tied to your drivers license remotely connected to the safe passage law?

Originally posted by SKIP
Secondly, at no time has the Director or any official spokesperson for Safety claimed that enforcement of this temporary section will result in diverting crews. There are a number of times that the oft suggested two officers are routinely manning a craft and they can easily incorporate occasional radar pickets into their routine patrol. Additionally, the addition of radar will authorize the NHMP to apply for and implement "radar grants" which will allow them the opportunity to employ additional patrols while not requiring an increase in their original budget.

Land based law enforcement officers have made radar a regular part of their daily routine. The NHMP will easily be able to incorporate the same principles.

And no public official will ever say publically that they have to divert crews, but there is no additional funding under HB 847 so in order to enforce it, and they will enforce it especially the first summer because of the hot button political issue that it has become, it will require crews to be certified and deployed (diverted). I have never been a public employee so I can only use as an example what would happen to my business if I were forced to expand a service with existing personnel and no additional funding source. You have to prioritize and for 2009 radar posts will be the political priority.

As you know many of the Marine Patrol officers utilized during the summer are seasonal employees. I seriously doubt that the Marine Patrol will send seasonal employees through the training necessary to earn the certification needed to use radar that can be presented in court. I could be wrong about that but it would seem to me that permanent officers would be the ones they would certify.

The NHMP could apply for radar grants, but wouldn't they have to show a need and the ability to use the additional equipment? Again I doubt that seasonal officers would be a plus when applying for a grant like this since they are unlikely to be certified in the use of radar.

Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

You keep posting that fallacy and continue to refuse to back it up. When I compared the article you posted from a business magazine claiming NH was not a safe place to boat because of all the reported accidents in 2006, I presented the stats from the Marine Patrol, offered by Woodsy, from the same year as quoted in the article 2006 and I even broke them down for you but you certainly can do that for yourself. There was a single accident involving a craft above 45mph on Lake Winnipesaukee and it involved a PWC not a High Performance boat and did not involve any other vessel.

So I ask you again, what daytime accidents involving speed are you talking about?

One of your supporters claimed to have found 47 speed related accidents in the NH 2006 stats and when I asked her to identify them (the information is even on a spreadsheet so she could have just made not of the number) and we are still waiting.

The fear mongering continues.

Even according to your own words, speeding boats is not the problem near children's camps...

So the problem is congestion and "confusion" ...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address. As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!

Lake Winnipesaukee is not a special case. It has no magic spell that protects its boaters from accidents. There is no reason to limit statistics to one small statistical inverse.

The opposition keeps making this insane "no accidents" claim yet we have three deaths in 6 years. Two deaths in the last 12 months. Wake up and smell the coffee.

In the statistics you mention, how many accidents have specific speed, by number, as part of the data?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...How is making a conviction for violationg HB 847 reportable to the RMV and tied to your drivers license remotely connected to the safe passage law?...

Easy question, easy answer.

But first, you cannot be convicted of "violating HB 847". HB 847 was a bill designed to temporarily ammend RSA 270-D:2. Part of that ammendment is that during the two year trial period, any violation and conviction of any subsection of RSA 270-D:2 on any public waterway results in automatic notification to NHDMV. Since the so called "safe passage" rules are a subsecetion of RSA 270-D:2 then any conviction for "safe passage" violations will become part of your driver's record. This is a new temporary feature designed to serve as an added deterrence. That's a definite and direct tie.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...And no public official will ever say publically that they have to divert crews, but there is no additional funding under HB 847 so in order to enforce it, and they will enforce it especially the first summer because of the hot button political issue that it has become, it will require crews to be certified and deployed (diverted). I have never been a public employee so I can only use as an example what would happen to my business if I were forced to expand a service with existing personnel and no additional funding source. You have to prioritize and for 2009 radar posts will be the political priority...

So you have no evidence of this oft repeated claim. So is it fair that you continually badger the opposition for direct evidence of their claims????

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...As you know many of the Marine Patrol officers utilized during the summer are seasonal employees. I seriously doubt that the Marine Patrol will send seasonal employees through the training necessary to earn the certification needed to use radar that can be presented in court. I could be wrong about that but it would seem to me that permanent officers would be the ones they would certify...

Once again, conjecture with no basis for statement other than uninformed opinion.

There are two classifications of NHMP officer, full time & part time. Under NH Law there is absolutely no legal distinction in law enforcement capabilities or authority between the two classifications other than retirement and hours worked classifications. While some part time NHMP officers are indeed "summer seasonal" looking to start a law enforcement career, a number of others are retired full time officers with years of experience. Additionally, only one officer needs to have certification, the officer signing the ticket. A two man team could easily consist of a spotter that requires no certification, and the issuing officer. And surprise, surprise. Even amongst the ranks of fulltime land based officers, many are not radar certified and do not operate radar units, or only specific types. During the two year trial period there will be some boats with a radar unit & certified officer, and many boats with neither. It will all be rolled into their daily routine.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...The NHMP could apply for radar grants, but wouldn't they have to show a need and the ability to use the additional equipment? Again I doubt that seasonal officers would be a plus when applying for a grant like this since they are unlikely to be certified in the use of radar...

How familiar are you with New Hampshire? We only have a handful of cities and large towns, mostly in central and southern areas. The vast majority of the State and its police departments are small, rural in nature and mostly comprised of part time chiefs & officers. Yet these departments with their part time employees successfully employ radar and radar grants, intoxilizer (breathalyzer) and DWI grants and a host of other training and supplemental funding opportunities. The NHMP will be no different.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees.

Completely incorrect. The majority of law enforcement officers in this State are part time. See my preceding paragraph.

Its simple. As I stated before, if you are going to demand that Bear Islander and his supporters provide proof of their positions, it is only fair of you to offer the same. And quite frankly you've waded way out past the swim line with your positions in reference to the above cited matters.

Hope this clears things up for some...as always, feel free to PM me if you have any additional questions!

Safe boating,

Skip

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Lake Winnipesaukee is not a special case. It has no magic spell that protects its boaters from accidents. There is no reason to limit statistics to one small statistical inverse.

The new law applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee, so review the data where the law is being implemented and you have nothing to stand on except fear mongering.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
The opposition keeps making this insane "no accidents" claim yet we have three deaths in 6 years. Two deaths in the last 12 months. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Them's pretty good odds, and none have been linked to speed although the latest is still an open investigation

Originally posted by Bear Islander
In the statistics you mention, how many accidents have specific speed, by number, as part of the data?

All of them, you didn't bother to look?

Originally posted by Skip
But first, you cannot be convicted of "violating HB 847". HB 847 was a bill designed to temporarily ammend RSA 270-D:2. Part of that ammendment is that during the two year trial period, any violation and conviction of any subsection of RSA 270-D:2 on any public waterway results in automatic notification to NHDMV. Since the so called "safe passage" rules are a subsecetion of RSA 270-D:2 then any conviction for "safe passage" violations will become part of your driver's record. This is a new temporary feature designed to serve as an added deterrence. That's a definite and direct tie.

That is a stretch...linking a boating violation to your drivers license won't have any impact on Capt Bonehead violating the 150' rule. First off they have to be caught something that even now is a problem.

Originally posted by Skip
So you have no evidence of this oft repeated claim. So is it fair that you continually badger the opposition for direct evidence of their claims????

Are you seriously trying to make us believe that with no additional funding but the political pressure to enforce the law that crews will magically appear to save the day? No, the proof that I have is experience in the private sector in which similar mandates without funding or personnel increases have resulted in changing priorities. Priorities are priorities. It's not rocket science. As for putting any stock in the fact that no administrator has said there will be a diversion of crews. No administrator is going to commit professional suicide by doing that, so I wouldn't put any stock in the fact that no one has said the law will required diverting crews.

Originally posted by Skip
There are two classifications of NHMP officer, full time & part time. Under NH Law there is absolutely no legal distinction in law enforcement capabilities or authority between the two classifications other than retirement and hours worked classifications. While some part time NHMP officers are indeed "summer seasonal" looking to start a law enforcement career, a number of others are retired full time officers with years of experience. Additionally, only one officer needs to have certification, the officer signing the ticket.

The "classification" may be part time, or even fulltime parttime, the fact is that the Marine Patrol would be hard pressed to explain why a seasonal employee was put through the certification process for a few months work, then he/she moves on. Maybe they'll be back, maybe not. If it were me allocating limited resources it would be for full time permanent officers.

Originally posted by Skip
Completely incorrect. The majority of law enforcement officers in this State are part time. See my preceding paragraph.

Its simple. As I stated before, if you are going to demand that Bear Islander and his supporters provide proof of their positions, it is only fair of you to offer the same. And quite frankly you've waded way out past the swim line with your positions in reference to the above cited matters.

Actually I wrote that..." Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees".
Note that I pointed out that land based LEOs using radar are NOT seasonal employees...am I wrong?

Maybe I have waded past the swim line, it's how we learn

The difference between my speculating on the future and Bear Islander's refusal to back up his claims using existing statistics, is that no one knows exactly what the future will hold. All I can do is speculate based on my past life experiences while for the most part BI and crew have ignored existing statistics in making their claims.

[Skip]

As most of the regular readers here have already figured out, I have several decades of direct, not speculative experience in this particular discussion. I can assure you that you have it, well let me put this politely...pretty well wrong.

I have gone through the radar certification process. I have been certified as a intoxilizer operator. I have worked shoulder to shoulder with countless full & part time officers across the state, both on the street and in the class room.

In your defense I find many of your opinions, while incorrect, fairly common out in the public. Too many folks get the wrong idea about law enforcement based on movies, television, gossip and most importantly incorrect information portrayed by the media.

It was (and still is) painful for me to read some of the atrocious beliefs & points being made (and still made) about radar training and employment, general points of law, the NHMP in particular and law enforcement in general. But then I usually sit back and realize that the same wrong things are repeatedly being said by the same half dozen posters and am content in knowing that a large number of our regular posters avoid these threads like the plague.

Why?

Because they are reasonable people that truly enjoy the Lake and conversations surrounding the same. They realize that Government and law enforcement are not perfect, but by and large it is made up of good people struggling every day to do the right thing. Most of them would rather waive to the NHMP rather than look for a reason to get into an argument with an officer. They know that probably some day somewhere, one of those officers, regardless if he's a thirty year grizzled veteran or a twenty something rookie on his first day, will risk his life or career to serveor save a fellow friend, relative or even themselves.

Because of Don's stewardship, this site shows that the world in general and Lake Winnipesaukee in particular is still full of wonderful & caring people. In closing maybe its time that all of us accept what occurred, study it fairly during its trial period and comment constructively when its time for review returns.

In other words, isn't it time we give it a rest?

Safe boating,

Skip

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Skip

As most of the regular readers here have already figured out, I have several decades of direct, not speculative experience in this particular discussion. I can assure you that you have it, well let me put this politely...pretty well wrong.

I have gone through the radar certification process. I have been certified as a intoxilizer operator. I have worked shoulder to shoulder with countless full & part time officers across the state, both on the street and in the class room.

In your defense I find many of your opinions, while incorrect, fairly common out in the public. Too many folks get the wrong idea about law enforcement based on movies, television, gossip and most importantly incorrect information portrayed by the media.

It was (and still is) painful for me to read some of the atrocious beliefs & points being made (and still made) about radar training and employment, general points of law, the NHMP in particular and law enforcement in general. But then I usually sit back and realize that the same wrong things are repeatedly being said by the same half dozen posters and am content in knowing that a large number of our regular posters avoid these threads like the plague.

Why?

Because they are reasonable people that truly enjoy the Lake and conversations surrounding the same. They realize that Government and law enforcement are not perfect, but by and large it is made up of good people struggling every day to do the right thing. Most of them would rather waive to the NHMP rather than look for a reason to get into an argument with an officer. They know that probably some day somewhere, one of those officers, regardless if he's a thirty year grizzled veteran or a twenty something rookie on his first day, will risk his life or career to serveor save a fellow friend, relative or even themselves.

Because of Don's stewardship, this site shows that the world in general and Lake Winnipesaukee in particular is still full of wonderful & caring people. In closing maybe its time that all of us accept what occurred, study it fairly during its trial period and comment constructively when its time for review returns.

In other words, isn't it time we give it a rest?

Safe boating,

Skip

All good points Skip, but I'll never accept what happened and plan to do what I can to make sure it expires and goes away without renewal. And I've seen my fair share of Gov't employees skating by and not caring, but that's a whole different topic, I think you should have left that part out here.

[Airwaves]

It would have been much more helpful to me, and others that have "commonly held misconceptions", for you to have explained what you think they are.

I know I for one have not questioned your qualifications and I generally consider what you write as probably a correct interpretation, but remember what I do as well, by profession I am a cynic and question things and if the answer doesn't make sense or is incompete I question some more.

So without prompting another peek into your resume, how am I incorrect in saying that with no additional funding or manpower, that this new law will result in the diversion of crews? It's my understanding that a radar post on the water needs to be "static" so that means while radar is in use a safety patrol is NOT underway.

The political reality is "it is what it is" to quote some coach so you will be seeing these Winnipesaukee radar posts in 2009. What will be very interesting to see, now that you pointed it out, is what the impact of the new law will be on the boating families throughout New Hampshire that don't normally travel fast but might not want to put their license on the line for violation of...say rafting rules... .

And what's been lost in this debate is the Homeland Security mandate that coastal states, including NH, develop and implement a program getting recreational boaters involved in port security. That will also require manpower.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...It would have been much more helpful to me, and others that have "commonly held misconceptions", for you to have explained what you think they are...

Fair enough...my apologies.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...So without prompting another peek into your resume, how am I incorrect in saying that with no additional funding or manpower, that this new law will result in the diversion of crews? It's my understanding that a radar post on the water needs to be "static" so that means while radar is in use a safety patrol is NOT underway...

NHMP patrols already employ a great many hours of sitting static, closely observing boating traffic. Now some of these static activities will include the use of several radar guns. By the way, expect to see NHMP officers spending more time static this season and in the future.

Why?

Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.

But back to the original question. Radar will be rolled in to the already scheduled practice of sitting still while observing. It just gives the officers another tool at their disposal for law enforcement purposes.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...What will be very interesting to see, now that you pointed it out, is what the impact of the new law will be on the boating families throughout New Hampshire that don't normally travel fast but might not want to put their license on the line for violation of...say rafting rules...

My highlight for editorial purposes.

You really need to carefully read the final adopted version of HB 847 including the pertinent ammendments to RSA 270-D:2. Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...And what's been lost in this debate is the Homeland Security mandate that coastal states, including NH, develop and implement a program getting recreational boaters involved in port security. That will also require manpower...

Devotion to Homeland and Port Security will remain a priority of the NHMP officers assigned to the Coast, a day to day mission that they have fulfilled for years since 9/11. The Federal Government has and continues to supplement with funding and manpower any additional resources they require of the NHMP in that arena. Rest assured that the NHMP can protect us from foreign & domestic terrorist attacks on Lake Winnipesaukee without detracting from their current daily assignments.

As a cynic you should be the first to recognize and dismiss the hype from reality.

[Airwaves]

Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.

And that's why I ask questions until I get answers

Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.

You're probably right about the price of fuel changing the practices of the NHMP, but by the same token as you point out the boat traffic will also probably slow...with that the funding source for the NHMP. A Catch 22.

The Federal Government has and continues to supplement with funding and manpower any additional resources they require of the NHMP in that arena. Rest assured that the NHMP can protect us from foreign & domestic terrorist attacks on Lake Winnipesaukee without detracting from their current daily assignments.

The information I got from Homeland Security did not indicate that it was a funded mandate, it mandated states DEVELOP and IMPLEMENT the program. Glad to hear the NHMP will continue to protect us from attacks on LNG tankers on Winnipesaukee

[NoBozo]

Hi Skip: I have only been a member of this Forum for a few days and have only been observing for a couple of weeks so I really don't know, ...havn't gotten a flavor for the backgrounds of the various individuals posting.

You seem to be Very Knowledgable, being able to quote chapter and verse from the Statutes.

May I ask your background? Are you in Law Inforcement? ..NHMP?.. Or are you a Lawyer?

In way of offering my background: I am a Retired Mechanical Engineer. NoBozo

[tupelo]

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways by tupelo

In the early days of motoring in NH, most cars were small, underpowered and unreliable. Speed limits existed nowhere on NH roads and highways. However by the early 1920's , bigger and better cars, like Duesenbergs, were finding their way onto these roads. Some were capable of doing 65 MPH right through downtown Laconia. They were fast and fun. Accidents occasionally happened but they were few and infrequent. One day a fast, new Duesy raced through Center Harbor, just hitting a small boy who fortunately only broke his arm as he rushed to cross the street. His mother however did not consider this to be such an insignificant injury. She spoke out, saying these GFBL cars need to slow down....my son might well have been killed. "Fear monger, fear monger" soon echoed through the ranks of the GFBL cars owners, directed at this vilified mother. Other townfolk soon began discussing speed limits as well. "But we've never had speed limits" cried some of GFBL car owners." We're turning into a nanny state" cried others. Some even called it feel good legislation. Soon more and more people though were clamoring for some limits. A man named Helvey Sanders became interested as well and a grassroots organization was born. He even traveled to N.Y. where speed limits had been established years ago. He came back after talking with law enforcement officials there about how these limits were instituted and enforced. He even sent letters to the editor detailing how they worked. "Foul play" cried many of the GFBL car owners. "You didn't spell out exactly who you spoke with, when you spoke with them, what their snail mail addresses are. You must provide annotated references with all letters to the editor. No wonder newspaper subscriptions are declining. Your newspaper is a rag. Yellow journalism." Some even threatened to drive their cars back and forth in front of Mr. Sanders' house(there were of course no stalking laws at this time). Soon some car dealerships also weighed in claiming their customers were not feeling welcome in the state and were going to move to Vermont. Besides they said, how are you going to measure and enforce speed limits...radar hasn't been invented yet so surely it will not work on land.
The controversy heated up. A poll was taken of NH residents asking if they felt the roads would be safer if there were speed limits. Mothers, fathers, horse and buggy owners, even common pedestrians weighed in. This statewide NH poll showed 85% of the people were in favor of speed limits on the roads. "Wait, foul play" cried the Duesy owners and other GFBL groups. "This poll is invalid because you only should poll car owners. How can a man who only rides a horse have any say". Soon the GFBL's organized a club, though a few people who owned horse and buggies, also Model T's were encouraged to join to give the sense of a fair and balanced club. They even took their own poll that showed 85% of their members thought "reasonable and prudent" would be a better standard. There was still the occasional accident, but forth came the rallying cry "this accident never would have happened if the car hadn't blown its tire while going through town at 70 mph".
There was even the occasional accident attributed to alcohol intoxication. One GFBL crashed into Ye Olde Tamarack Restaurant in broad daylight doing 55 mph but when it was later found that the driver was intoxicated and had misinterpreted the meaning of "Drive-In",the GFBL car owners cried "See, this proves speed limits would never work...drunks would never obey them!"
By now there was interest in the legislature for establishing speed limits. The house in fact passed this new bill, HB 7. "Vote the bums out" was heard from the "no limits" crowd. One person was heard to say "If the old man of the mountain were still standing, he'd be shedding a tear right now". Another man said " It is still standing you idiot". Soon the senate passed HB 7 and then the governor signed as well. While the GFBL car crowd vowed to fight on, after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.




THE END

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by tupelo

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways by tupelo

In the early days of motoring in NH, most cars were small, underpowered and unreliable. Speed limits existed nowhere on NH roads and highways. However by the early 1920's , bigger and better cars, like Duesenbergs, were finding their way onto these roads. Some were capable of doing 65 MPH right through downtown Laconia. They were fast and fun. Accidents occasionally happened but they were few and infrequent. {big snip} By now there was interest in the legislature for establishing speed limits. The house in fact passed this new bill, HB 7. {big snip} While the GFBL car crowd vowed to fight on, after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.
THE END

Nice tale tupelo. It is too bad those early people didn't think smartly enough to establish buffer zones and laws about reasonable speeds. Going slowly over a narrow bridge for instance. Like driving slowly within 15 feet of other cars, buildings and even people. Specially those people stupid enough to walk in the areas regularly traveled by cars going at speeds reasonable and prudent for the circumstances.

They didn't know as much back in those early days as they do today but some people just won't learn. Of course in those very early days 10 mph was considered TO FAST. and 25 mph was like the devil was driving. Some ignorant people refused to even go in such speedy contraptions let alone feel comfortable anywhere near a faster horseless carriage. Boy, we've grown a lot since then.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Fair enough...my apologies.



NHMP patrols already employ a great many hours of sitting static, closely observing boating traffic. Now some of these static activities will include the use of several radar guns. By the way, expect to see NHMP officers spending more time static this season and in the future.

Why?

Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.

But back to the original question. Radar will be rolled in to the already scheduled practice of sitting still while observing. It just gives the officers another tool at their disposal for law enforcement purposes.



My highlight for editorial purposes.

You really need to carefully read the final adopted version of HB 847 including the pertinent ammendments to RSA 270-D:2. Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.

Started to show up over here last summer Skip. The higher costs of fuel have to be dealt with somehow. I suspect that many MP boats could actually be more successful in their efforts of deterrent just by hanging out in hot spots, static, if you will. It has to be more economical doing radar and observation than the good old days of bombing around the lake on patrol.

The fuel costs may very well prove to be the most important thing that's happened in enforcement on the lake. Perhaps the 150' limit can be more easily observed in congested areas by the MP. Or better yet, perhaps their presence will aid in people abiding by the law.

Rest assured, the fuel used to go very fast will be a deterrent as well.

[Airwaves]

Okay, maybe I'll think of more later...

The language in HB847 makes violations reportable to the NHDMV, do you believe that applies only to Chapter 270-D or the entire Chapter 270?

AW

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay, maybe I'll think of more later...

The language in HB847 makes violations reportable to the NHDMV, do you believe that applies only to Chapter 270-D or the entire Chapter 270?

AW

Hi AW,

Only 270-D:2

Interesting sidebar. A very good source has informed me that boating violations have already been routinely reported to the NHDMV. And some of the good folks here have confirmed to me that when they have been "bad", they have subsequently learned that their conviction has appeared on their respective driving record.

Interesting!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I'm starting to feel like Evenstar.

You should, your fear of being hit by a boat while in your house is utterly irrational. While certainly not impossible, it's a silly thing to worry about. You are much more likely to die from an infection, a lightning strike or a fall in a bathtub, and no matter what, you will die of something. Might as well lighten up a bit and enjoy life while you have it.

Thank you for pointing out that the Formula 370 SS is not a GFBL with your informative post on it's capabilities. 58 MPH and quiet is not going fast or being loud.

I have relatives that have owned property on Long Lake for generations and not a single one of them has ever been hit by a boat, not even while they were sleeping in bed. They are, for the most part, a happy lot and think you are irrational (and silly) too.

[2Blackdogs]

Dave R writes in part,

your fear of being hit by a boat while in your house is utterly irrational.

I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Dave R writes in part,



I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

Maybe you should just sell your place and stay our of harms way then.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Dave R writes in part,



I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

You could be hit by a bus walking down the side of the street, or have a tree fall on your house as a few families in Windham last night. Or by a boat while sitting in your living room. That's the price you have to pay, to be alive. Some unforeseen catastrophe that you have no control over can always be looming over the horizon. I just can't imagine it's a very fulfilling existence to be walking around with an anvil always hanging over your head. Wondering when it is going to fall.