Sound travels at night

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Rick35

That boat went between Bear and Pine Islands as well. There has been a boat doing this for years. Usually Friday or Saturday nights between midnight and 2 AM. Very load and very fast, I wait to hear if he will hit the no wake marker, but he never does. Either very lucky or good night vision.

The old marker has a big metal thing that got hit real bad. The newer one is much lighter and will do less damage.

And he ALWAYS goes by south to north.

Sounds like an ideal candidate for the MP to wait for. Have you phoned in the boat's coordinates and MO?

[codeman671]

I did notice that someone hit the red/white spar at the tip of Bear this weekend, either Friday or Saturday night. The top was almost sliced off. I know my stereo did not do that

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Sounds like an ideal candidate for the MP to wait for. Have you phoned in the boat's coordinates and MO?

The MP were around the NWZ last night blue lighting a few boats. But over night I think there is only one boat on duty.

I wonder if he will do it next year? It will be harder to get away with if he is breaking the law all the time instead of just busting the zone.

[B R]

Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do?

I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do?

I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.

Yes he is breaking the law now, but only at one place on the lake. He may be easier to catch when is breaking the law all over the lake.

By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes he is breaking the law now, but only at one place on the lake. He may be easier to catch when is breaking the law all over the lake.

By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.

How do you know he'll be breaking the law all over the lake next year. You've witnessed him buzzing through the NWZ so you know he's broken that law but what other law has he broken besides that and how do you know he'll be breaking it next year. Have fun with boats going 25 mph or less by your house each night next summer...hopefully you're a night owl.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

How do you know he'll be breaking the law all over the lake next year. You've witnessed him buzzing through the NWZ so you know he's broken that law but what other law has he broken besides that and how do you know he'll be breaking it next year. Have fun with boats going 25 mph or less by your house each night next summer...hopefully you're a night owl.

Next year he will be speeding unless he changes his ways. I don't know how fast he has been going, but it is way way over 25.

Boats going by don't bother me at any speed. The lights and the sound are relaxing actually. If I didn't like the site and sound of boats, I wouldn't live on a point.

You seem to be stuck on your own stereotyped image of speed limit supporters. Your boat hating islander theory is mutually exclusive.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Next year he will be speeding unless he changes his ways. I don't know how fast he has been going, but it is way way over 25.

Boats going by don't bother me at any speed. The lights and the sound are relaxing actually. If I didn't like the site and sound of boats, I wouldn't live on a point.

You seem to be stuck on your own stereotyped image of speed limit supporters. Your boat hating islander theory is mutually exclusive.

Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??

[Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??

Are you Trolling again?

I don't get it. What are you after? Will it give you "closure" to catch the opposition in a semantic error? Do you have to make every thread about speed limits? How can anybody know the intent of an unknown person? He is breaking one law now... if he does the same thing next year he will be breaking two. What is your point?

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Islander

Are you Trolling again?

I don't get it. What are you after? Will it give you "closure" to catch the opposition in a semantic error? Do you have to make every thread about speed limits? How can anybody know the intent of an unknown person? He is breaking one law now... if he does the same thing next year he will be breaking two. What is your point?

No not trolling just asking a question pertainting to BI's post...isn't that clear?

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??

Once again?

KC, why the "shove" aspect to these questions at this thread?

First, we are to "shove" our fingers into our ears against noisy boaters?

Second, we are to "shove" concerns about lakefronts being struck....right after one WAS hit?

One poster wrote here, "Good luck trying to enforce this" and intended to, "boat as I always have". Let me ask you, doesn't that "shove-it-attitude" of a poster here fit the template perfectly to be Bear Islander's targeted night-time offender?

.....Since it only takes a handful of boaters to ruin it for everybody, there's a lot of arrogant "shoving" going on here.....

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Once again?

KC, why the "shove" aspect to these questions at this thread?

First, we are to "shove" our fingers into our ears against noisy boaters?

Second, we are to "shove" concerns about lakefronts being struck....right after one WAS hit?

One poster wrote here, "Good luck trying to enforce this" and intended to, "boat as I always have". Let me ask you, doesn't that "shove-it-attitude" of a poster here fit the template perfectly to be Bear Islander's targeted night-time offender?

.....Since it only takes a handful of boaters to ruin it for everybody, there's a lot of arrogant "shoving" going on here.....

There's an saying..."one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch" , it's also a song by The Osmond Brothers and now I'm really feeling old.

[B R]

i guess with the speed limit in place, MP hears this guy and then starts chasing him around the lake? doesn't sound all that safe to me. sounds like the probability of an accident goes up significantly.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

i guess with the speed limit in place, MP hears this guy and then starts chasing him around the lake? doesn't sound all that safe to me. sounds like the probability of an accident goes up significantly.

You are using faulty logic. By your way of thinking our highways would be safer if we didn't have speed limits on them. Because then the police would not be chasing offenders. But that's not the way it works, is it! Do you really think boats will run from the Marine Patrol? Where will they run to? Where can they hide? Winni is a closed environment.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

You are using faulty logic. By your way of thinking our highways would be safer if we didn't have speed limits on them. Because then the police would not be chasing offenders. But that's not the way it works, is it! Do you really think boats will run from the Marine Patrol? Where will they run to? Where can they hide? Winni is a closed environment.

German autobahns (no day time speed limit, for the most part, night time limit of 130 kmh (80 MPH or so)) have historically had a lower accident rate than US highways. Many US police departments have a no high speed chase policy because it turns out the chase is typically far more dangerous for the general public than the offense that started the chase.

That said, I see your point and honestly do not expect to see any high speed chases on this lake...

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.

Choose wisely, most "motion detection" cameras work horribly outdoors and will trigger many false alarms.

Get something with a decent cut filter and adjustable imager settings and you should get some good shots with just the moonlight. You'll likely want at least D1/4CIF resolution as well. Megapixel would be good, but probably not strickly necessary.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by B R

Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do? I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.

Next year, BI's night-time offender will be identified by an unseen officer with radar.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The MP were around the NWZ last night blue lighting a few boats. But over night I think there is only one boat on duty.

I wonder if he will do it next year? It will be harder to get away with if he is breaking the law all the time instead of just busting the zone.

First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.

BI, what the heck? He runs nightly at high speed and very loud through a NWZ and you're wondering if he'll do it next year? I guess you're saying the enforcement is so lacking that you need to be breaking a law everywhere to occasionally get the perp? I'd be far more worried, and very annoyed, about someone doing that in a NWZ than someone going 50 mph at night. Different breed of arrogant.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.

BI, what the heck? He runs nightly at high speed and very loud through a NWZ and you're wondering if he'll do it next year? I guess you're saying the enforcement is so lacking that you need to be breaking a law everywhere to occasionally get the perp? I'd be far more worried, and very annoyed, about someone doing that in a NWZ than someone going 50 mph at night. Different breed of arrogant.

The NWZ was created because of congestion in a narrow passage. There are probably no boats in the NWZ when he goes through at 1 or 2 am. And it's not every night, just now and then on weekends. I'm not saying it's OK. I would love it if the MP were waiting for him when he came through some night.

I have the MP on my scanner. Every hour each boat out reports their location. That time of night it's usually one boat on a large lake.

All in all the guys that really get me are the ones that follow behind you when your tubing. That is world class stupid, yet legal if he is back 150'. It doesn't happen often, but once is to many.

Steve it seems boats busting a NWZ gets you angry. If so don't live next to a NWZ.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Steve it seems boats busting a NWZ gets you angry. If so don't live next to a NWZ.

I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.

[SAMIAM]

I'm probably the only person on the forum who welcomes NWZ violators.....I live in a no wake zone and it's nice to have a few waves to clean my beach every now and then.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.

This hidden agenda stuff is either crap or bad memory. It's the opposition that keeps talking about safety, so naturally the pro-limit side responds about safety. And I'm sure that for some on "my" side it is only about safety. But I have been telling people for years that "its not just about safety" or that "safety is not my first concern".

Read this post by Woodsy from 2005. In it Representative Pilliod, the author of the original bill, clearly states it is all about "Fear". He also makes it plain he thinks high performance boats don't belong on the lake, and that they should go to the ocean.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?p=23856

"...However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it..."

..."why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for"....

You can read down a few posts and see what others, including yours truly, has to say about it.

So you see Steve this hidden agenda stuff is pure baloney. So please either stop posting about it or tell me specifically what you think has been hidden.

[VtSteve]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

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

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

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

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

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

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

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

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

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

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

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

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

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

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

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

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

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

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.

I don't see what those quotes prove. Like I said, the opposition wanted to focus on the safety issue so that is what I responded to.

45 IS safer than 55.

That IS all the justification that is necessary (however there is a lot more)

Coast Guard statistics DO support HB847

A 45 mph speed limit WILL make the lake safer

I DID NOT pick 45

45 IS lower than I believe necessary

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

Children's camps ARE limiting their boating

There IS fear in the lake community

The lake DOES have a thrill-seeking reputation

Tourism IS negatively effected by the above

Every word is true. Every word is consistent. Every argument points to a reason I support speed limits. I am not limited to one argument. I can have more than one agenda!

[COWISLAND NH]

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

QUOTE]

What's next...no boats on the lake over 18 feet??? YADDA YADDA YADDA.
Careful what you vote for....I don't want to be swimming to the island in ten years!

[SIKSUKR]

First,boats that didn't fit winnfabs and their supporters idea of what should be on the lake were labeled Go Fast Be Load.Then the lake has been labeled dangerous because of the "Cowboy" and "Wild West" attitudes.Now any boat that can go much faster than 45 is labeled a "Thrillseeker".The scare tactics continue even after the law was signed in.What's next?Will it be those evil"Mechanical Monsters" that used to be called power boats?

[Ryan]

How about this logic:

0 MPH is safer than 1 MPH. We should ban movement on the lake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.

It's really not nearly as bad as people would have you think. Winnipesaukee is a very polite and low-key place to boat. We truly are spoiled.

[2Blackdogs]

Because we expect too much of our boaters?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Because we expect too much of our boaters?

Perhaps, but I think it's because the majority are courteous and thoughtful; so much so, that the occasional boneheads really stand out (not unlike posters on this forum). Maybe they have risen to our expectations?

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Perhaps, but I think it's because the majority are courteous and thoughtful; so much so, that the occasional boneheads really stand out (not unlike posters on this forum). Maybe they have risen to our expectations?

Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

In my opinion a bad boater is a bad boater...what does it matter what "state" they are from? Is this YOUR hidden agenda 2bd? Where do you think all your fellow supporters over on BI are from? It ain't NH!! As far as the Cobalt sinking in the middle of the lake what does this have to do with anything? Are you now saying that innocent swimmers are being run down by big bad boats? This is bordering on the absurd, truly.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

By now you probably have heard that hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake and has become so bad that we had a speed limit passed to eliminate that problem.It has now been brought to my attention that swimmers are being run down intentionally also.Interesting though is the thoughts of some of our local residents like the above quoted BD who tells us in this post that only people like himself are qualified to recreate on Lake Winni.If you are from another state(which I am not) or you disagree with his twisted view of the world,you should be banned from ever being on the lake.This is where these warped thinking people who have already started the ball rolling are going folks.WAKE UP and see what's going on people.I don't know about you but it this kind of thinking that should scare the heck out of all of us!

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This is where these warped thinking people who have already started the ball rolling are going folks.WAKE UP and see what's going on people.I don't know about you but it this kind of thinking that should scare the heck out of all of us!

Seems to me you're being overly dramatic here. Polls showed NH people wanted this (yes I know you disagree with the results of the poll), the house voted for HB 847 by a wide margin, then the senate voted for it, now the governor has signed on as well. And just like people would legislate,say, against someone relieving himself in a town park, people have similarly said they don't want another beautiful resource (Winni) defiled. And the house, senate, and governor listened. I've heard all the arguments about "fear mongering" and such but people are able to see through the BS of politics and polititians and make up their own minds. People we talk to are very happy and excited about the new limits.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

By now you probably have heard that hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake and has become so bad that we had a speed limit passed to eliminate that problem.

As the kayaker on this forum who has posted the most about why kayaking has become dangerous on the lake, I have never once posted that high-speed boats are running over kayaks.

What I have posted is that SOME high-speed boaters are traveling faster than their ability to spot smaller, slower boats in time and that I have personally had high-speed boats unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast. And this has happened way too often while I’ve been kayaking on winni.

I’ve never suggested that a speed limit will eliminate all safety issues – anymore than highway speed limits solve all safety issues on the highway – both are merely tools that are used to make both activities safer for everyone.

Congestion, BWI, and ignorance/disregard for existing boating laws are also major problems on the lake – but all these problems become even more dangerous with higher speeds. With all else being equal, slower is safer.

[SIKSUKR]

I never claimed that you did.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Congestion, BWI, and ignorance/disregard for existing boating laws are also major problems on the lake – but all these problems become even more dangerous with higher speeds. With all else being equal, slower is safer.

These ARE the problems on the lake. Enforcement of the current rules will alleviate these major problems. A feel good law based on lies and hype will not.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I never claimed that you did.

And I didn't say that you claimed that I did. But I am interested in where you (or anyone else visiting this forum) heard that "hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake." Who ever suggested that was happening?

Originally Posted by Ryan

These ARE the problems on the lake. Enforcement of the current rules will alleviate these major problems. A feel good law based on lies and hype will not.

The current rules are being enforced - but there is no way to enforce the current rules over 100% of the lake 100% of the time.

How is this a "feel good law," anymore than a highway speed limit is one?

The law was based on people's testimony that a lake speed limit was needed. I gave my own testimony, which was based on my own actual experience and on documented statistics - and I did not exaggerate in any way and I do not lie.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

but there is no way to enforce the current rules over 100% of the lake 100% of the time.

Your logic is severly flawed. If you can't enfore existing laws, how will the new SL be enforced? I'm not sure if you saw any of my posts from the past week, but there was very little MP presence on the lake last weekend. It was heavily congested. Gas prices are keeping MP boats docked, but not keeping boats off the lake. The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How is this a "feel good law," anymore than a highway speed limit is one?

Because there have been numerous, documented cases where it has been shown that speed, and speed alone were the direct result of accidents on highways. These facts just didn't exist in Concord.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.

Doesn't seem as though much magic needs to be imagined.
Let's say an accident occurs next summer.What if the speed of the boat is 45 MPH?...then people might well conclude that that was better than if the accident occurred at 65 MPH. What if there are no accidents?...one could also conclude that HB 847 was effective. What if there's an accident at 65 MPH?...conclusion:need to put further scrutiny on these few offenders who are breaking the law. Then there's the testimony of people who enjoy the lake more when GFBLs are no longer legally zipping by them at 65 MPH just 150' away from their rowboat while fishing. And don't forget improvement of Winni's embarrassing wild west reputation(which came well before WINNFABS).
People will indeed realize in 2 years that the world did not suddenly stop spinning in its axis just because of HB 847.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

What if there are no accidents?...one could also conclude that HB 847 was effective.

Then what is your "conclusion" for years where there were no accidents and no speed limit?

Then there's the testimony of people who enjoy the lake more when GFBLs are no longer legally zipping by them at 65 MPH just 150' away from their rowboat while fishing.

SOMEBODY will always like it better when SOMEBODY else can no longer enjoy some activity in their backyard.

I'd enjoy the lake more (and I don't own a boat capable of exceeding 45MPH) if there weren't fishermen in boats in the middle of common powerboat paths, or kayakers paddling along with idiotic grins on their faces in front of town docks while boats come in and out, attempting to maintain proper distance from other boats.

In fact I'd enjoy the lake even more if EVERYBODY else stayed off the lake at the random times that *I* want to use it.

Of course, much like the supposedly perfect worlds that you and Evenstar pine for, I realize that these wants of mine are unrealistic and unfair.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??

I've very clearly stated numerous times, in great detail, why these specific violations were speed related - so do a search on my previous posts. These specific violations were not intentional - they were unintentional - due to speed. I have never have never been a victim of an unintentional 150 foot violation on Squam - where there is a 40mph enforced speed limit. And I paddle Squam a great deal more than I paddle on winni.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Your logic is severly flawed. If you can't enfore existing laws, how will the new SL be enforced? The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.

How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.

I'm not sure if you saw any of my posts from the past week, but there was very little MP presence on the lake last weekend. It was heavily congested. Gas prices are keeping MP boats docked, but not keeping boats off the lake.

Do you know for a fact that the MP is spending any less time on the lake this summer than last? If so, do you have any proof that this is due to gas prices? A MP boat was on the lake near me last week, and they have to trailer their boats to be on this lake. And I saw just as many MP on Squam last Saturday. Their presence on both lakes seems about the same as any summer to me.

Because there have been numerous, documented cases where it has been shown that speed, and speed alone were the direct result of accidents on highways. These facts just didn't exist in Concord.

Collisions might be rare, but close calls from high speed boats seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats, so I know for a fact that they happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not dangerous to paddlers.

And when there is a boating accident, there's no accurate way to estimate how fast the boat was traveling - the main tool for estimating auto accident speeds are tire skid marks - boats don't leave skid marks.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.

What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure?

Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief? (We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure? Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief?

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)

(We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"?

But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to. Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:

1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.

2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.

3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.

4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law

Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. You've sort of painted yourself into a corner all your own. Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)



I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?

For as many people to fabricate as much fear as they did to push this law through, then yes current laws are not being enforced enough. We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason. This law is an example of that and I can't wait for the cycle to end. There is no concrete proof there is a speeding problem, just fabricated fear and perception of a problem as a result. I sat in the hearing in Concord and listened to the same thing over and over again from the Pro crowd. Fear, I'm afraid, Fear I'm afraid. Big boats, I'm afraid. Sadly it worked.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

So if so-called high speed powerboats are coming within 64 feet or less from you, do you think the real problem is the speed they are traveling at is hampering their vision (again, at 64 feet!) and preventing you from being seen sooner or the utter lack of common courtesy or disobedience of the laws in place is the problem???

My experience on Winnipesaukee or on boats in general, which I can say is clearly a lot more than yours, is that most boats on Winni ignore the 150' rule. Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

The speed limit is not going to fix your problem. You are looking through rose colored shades and/or drinking the coolaid if you think you will be safer. Winnipesaukee in general this year is a ghost town compared to previous years, and it is not the speed limit that is pending quieting things down.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"? But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to.

I never said that – I happen to believe that most boating laws are not intentionally being broken by most boaters – which is, in itself, enforcement, since one of the definitions of enforcement is: “compel to behave in a certain way.” By your logic (since my logic is so flawed), a single unenforced violation of a law proves that a law is not being enforced. So, by that logic, no laws are being enforced in this country. So who’s logic is actually the most flawed?

Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:
1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.
2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.
3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.
4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

I can follow the spirit of others posts just fine. The problem is that I disagee with them, due to my onw experience on the lake. Most posting members of this forum is so anti-speed limit focused that anyone who is supportive of a lake speed limit must have “flawed logic” or is “unable to follow the spirit of the other posts.”

1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see other vessels in time to remain clear of their 150 foot zone, that law is not protecting them. I contend that in these cases, the only real solution is to force boats to slow down.

2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”

3.) Again, where’s your proof that this is so? Because I totally disagree with your conclusion, and one of my majors is Legal Studies. According to my professors, most people will try to follow most laws most of the time. And what is so “burdensome” about a 45mph lake speed limit?

4.) Times change. Laws that were sufficient in early times need to be updated due to changes in society, in the environment, in new technology, or because of new information. And it is much more difficult to amend an existing law than to enact a new law.

Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. . . . Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.

It is very easy to make allegations about others or to poke fun of others in order to discredit them. Yet you have not provided any proof at all to any of your own statements – all you’ve posted so far are just your own beliefs. Your post (#62) is nothing but a personal attack on me. Personal attacks are what several of the anti-speed limit members here resort to when they can’t out debate another member.

Perhaps most other members don’t feel like I need anyone to “come to my rescue.” Or perhaps they are not willing to become a target of the anti-speed limit members here. I get all sorts of email support from many non-vocal members here.

Originally Posted by EricP

We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason.

I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

I have never bragged about my skills. I never even mentioned most of my skills or my background until my abilities and my qualifications were questioned (or often ridiculed) by other members here – often repeatedly. I never lie and I have never exaggerated my skills or abilities. I “ease up” when others ease up on me. If your abilities and skills were constantly being challenged, wouldn’t you try to stand up for yourself?

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.

I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see

We'll just stop this one right here....your opinions of boating at high speeds are just that - opinions and cannot be portrayed as facts in a logical arguement.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Do you know for a fact that the MP is spending any less time on the lake this summer than last? If so, do you have any proof that this is due to gas prices? A MP boat was on the lake near me last week, and they have to trailer their boats to be on this lake. And I saw just as many MP on Squam last Saturday. Their presence on both lakes seems about the same as any summer to me.

I heard it from the kid working a gas dock who spoke with an MP earlier that weekend.
In all honestly, it holds about the same water (no pun intended) as Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski and his report on cars and boats in Miami.


For the record, Jim's rule #6 sounds like a great idea. Very similar to one we already had on the books.

Rule - 6 requires that every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. In determining safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: the visibility, traffic density, maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability, at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights, the state of the wind, sea, current, proximity of navigational hazards, and the draft in relation to the available depth of water. Additionally, vessels with operational radar must use that radar to its fullest extent to determine the risk of collision.

[KonaChick]

Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??

Evenstar attributes the majority of her posts to her own personal interpretations of things.

She could make great strides in lake safety by simply riding with the NHMP boats and acting as a human radar gun. No electronic detector would ever be able to warn the nasty power-drunk GFBL boaters traveling faster than their ability to see that the Evenstar 5000 was watching them. Of course, she would have to be sure to not be wearing her BLUE bikini and YELLOW lifevest and waving her ORANGE paddle tips ****

[Jeti]

We're just talkin' about the future
Forget about the past
It'll always be with us
It's never gonna die, never gonna die

Rock 'n' roll ain't noise pollution
Rock 'n' roll ain't gonna die
Rock 'n' roll ain't no pollution
Rock 'n' roll is just rock 'n' roll