Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chase1

...You ans I should not be restricted from kayaking in the broads just because someone else can't handle it. This is just one of the reasons I have opposed the speed limit. I do not feel it is right to restrict all powerboats boats on this lake based on the actions of a few inexperienced recreational boaters.

The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.

Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep.

The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by B R

Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.

No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).

you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes.

The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???

why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?

Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.

I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.

I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group!

Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.

[BroadHopper]

I agree with Skip. Let's move on. As long as everyone boat, whether motor, paddle or sail in a reasonable and prudent manner, everyone should be satisfied. Pointing fingers at each other and flapping our wings is a mean to no ends. This should eliminate future restrictions to our sport of boating. The problem is the damage is done and we will see more restrictions with 'feel good' laws.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by B R

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1709 post 36 you wrote:



While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.

Why close a forum? Sure, we've beat it to death, but it's not gotten stale. Occasionally, new tidbits come up. Frankly, it's far more relevant than anything in the media. Perhaps someone out there will get the idea that increased enforcement is really needed, don't know.

But burying a topic as important as this one serves no one. I haven't seen anything like this board for information coming from so many sides on one issue. There's some good stuff here, seriously. If the MP's and others read these threads, this one and the Captain Bonehead thread, that's not a bad thing.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It took this long, After the speed limit was placed into law, for people to cut to the chase and give some real views. Evenstar said the years ago, which is what many opponents of the bill stated.

I wrote that before I had kayaked on winni. After paddling out on the lake a few times and nearly being run over by high-speed boaters, I saw why a speed limit was also needed. I still belive that lack of enforcement of current boating laws is still a major issue. I believe that both are equally important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

No, it’s based on the fact that a handful of people want to rid the lake of performance boats!! If it was based on common sense, there wouldn’t BE a speed limit. BUT, not everyone uses common sense, and, as we all know, YOU CAN’T LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE! If people are that fearful, perhaps they don’t belong on the lake.

No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.

So, first, it’ll be the performance boats to disappear, then it’ll be the cabin cruisers, then the bass boats and finally, it’ll be anyone who doesn’t own shorefront property. Then the property owners will have their lake to themselves, kind of like what’s happened to Squam Lake.

There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

You claim you have the right to kayak ANYWHERE on the lake yet you fear being run over by a powerboat so you push for a speed limit to “make the lake safer”. At what point does your right to kayak anywhere interfere with my rights to enjoy my powerboat at speed?!?

NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.

Bicycles are not allowed on the interstate highways for a reason; they’re a slow-moving vehicle in close proximity to fast-moving vehicles. This is the same as a kayak or canoe in a wide open area on the main lake where powerboats could be travelling at higher speeds. Instead of a speed limit, maybe it’s time slow-moving watercraft were restricted from certain parts of the main lake (like bicycles from the interstate)!!

Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats - it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce. You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.

I have no problem with people pursuing an activity they enjoy so long as they are willing to accept the risks associated with it. It annoys me when someone wants to do something but they don’t want to accept the risks involved with that activity (fearing something will happen to them) so they lobby for a law in an attempt to make it safer for them. Afraid the parachute won’t open? DON’T GO PARACHUTING!!! Are you a kayaker that fears being run over by a powerboat (ANY powerboat)?? Then don't go in areas frequented by powerboats!

I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.

You are putting assumptions upon your statement. The FACT is that no one has taken you up on your challenge. The reasons are not yours to assume or postulate without proof. . . . If I did happen to kayak, I’d be more than happy to go with you but I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to keep up with you since we all know how fit and healthy you are and I’m not. Besides, I thought the whole idea behind the “challenge” was to see who had the cojones to go out kayaking with you, not who was stronger and faster!

I made my kayak-with-me challenge because there were way too many people on this forum stating that my fears were unfounded – or were greatly exaggerated – when they had never even paddled on the main lake. If members of the opposition were as open-minded as they claim to be, someone would have been willing to actually try paddling with me. When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.

And finally, if YOU have so much courage, why push for a speed limit? Just go out kayaking and get your thrills. If you love kayaking in open water where there’s a possibility of you being run over by a powerboat (like in The Broads), THAT’S the risk YOU have to assume!!

I can (and do) get all sorts of thrills without putting my life in danger. I broke my leg last semester on the sailing team (my captain creamed me – totally by mistake) – and I’m returning to the sailing team this semester – so I’m very used to taking risks. NCAA athletes have to sign all sorts of release forms – stating that we accept the physical risks of participating in our sports. But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.

I didn’t know laws were also being voted on based on FEAR. That's not what this country was built on.

This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.
I have spoken out mostly because I saw how paddlers were effectively being forced from paddling on the main lake – just because of the actions of a small percentage of powerboaters. Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, that is just your opinion – it is not a fact. As I’ve stated several times on this forum, if all boaters had enough common sense, we would not need a speed limit – or many other laws. It is not common sense to travel at speeds that are beyond your ability to see other boaters in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – but it happens all the time. You can legislate a maximum lake speed that is safer for everyone on the lake – and that’s what this law does.

Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts. Actually, BI has made no bones about the "fact" that his reason for a speed limit is to limit, reduce or eliminate performance boats on the lake. I'm sure there are several others with similar thinking so don't tell me it's "just my opinion". As for my vision, it's fine. I do not drive "faster than my ability to see" because my ability to see doesn't change with the speed I'm travelling at. I can see a kayaker 1/4 mile away, whether I'm doing 45mph or 65mph! And if I'm travelling at 65mph, I'm looking far ahead to make sure there is no one in my path that would put them or me in any danger.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There are bass boats on Squam – in fact (as I have already posted) they held their final NH competition on Squam a few years ago. The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Reference twoplustwo's post above.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

NH law guarantees me that right – it is not something that I just claim. You can still use the entire lake – you just won’t be able to legally exceed the speed limit. There is no law the gives you the “right” to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds.

You're right; poor choice of words on my part. You absolutely have the right to paddle on the lake but you need to accept the risks involved with paddling on a lake frequented by powerboats of all types because WE have a right to be there as well. And, up until the speed limit law takes effect, it IS AND HAS BEEN our right to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake. This has been perfectly legal, and on a quiet day mid-week when traffic is light and not congested, there is no problem.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Lakes are not part of a high-speed transportation network. The main lake is not a private race area for high-performance power boats -

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- it is for everyone to use – and it would be wrong to divide the lake up into sections for different types of boats – and a nightmare for the MP to enforce.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You are also forgetting that paddlers were actually here first. There is no good reason for me not to be able to use my sea kayak on the entire lake – other than the fact that a few powerboaters feel that their “right” to travel at unlimited speeds is more important that the rights of others to use the main lake.

Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining. You make it sound like there are 100-plus performance boats constantly criss-crossing the lake at speeds of 55mph and higher. You and I both know that's not true. No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I accept the risks involved with kayaking on large lakes – but that does not mean that I have to just sit back and let a few high-speed powerboaters make the lake unsafe for paddlers – because of their selfish needs of traveling at unsafe speeds.

It's only unsafe when someone knowingly puts themselves in harm's way. If they choose to do that, then they must accept the risk associated with it. I refer you to Alton Bay Bob's comment regarding kayaking on the lake, "As neither an opponent (n)or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet." Sounds like simple common sense to me.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When did I ever say that I would not wait for a slower paddler? Despite what many here may think of me, I’m actually a very nice person and would never invite someone to kayak with me and then just speed off ahead of them. I would NEVER get very far away from an inexperienced kayaker, in case they were in need of my help.

I never said you did but the tone of your posts (on this particular point) always seems to me like you're boasting of your abilities (you started out making an "offer" but it quickly became a "challenge"). Did it ever occur to you that maybe no one took you up on the offer simply because no one wants to go kayaking (with you or anyone else for that matter)?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But I should not have to accept being put in danger (of being killed) – just because a few powerboaters don’t have the sense to travel at reasonable speeds – THAT is NOT a risk I should have to accept.

What's reasonable (read "safe") to you is not always reasonable to me. I enjoy going fast and WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This law is based on a safety issue (even if the opponents refuse to admit it) – and there are tons of laws that are based on safety issues.

It's a law based on an unfounded need. If it were based on safety, they would have gone further and provided more funding for the MP (so they could better enforce the existing laws) and maybe even toughened up the boating certificate requirement. Boating certificate.......it should be part of your driver's license, like licensing for motorcycles, cars, commercial vehicles, etc.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yet you and many other powerboaters who claim that the speed lime will force GFBL off the lake don’t seem to have any trouble with paddlers being forced off the main lake.

There is no law forcing paddlers off the lake and I'm not trying to force them off the lake. I just want them to use common sense before going paddling in an area that they fear! If they fear it, they shouldn't go paddling there. There's approximately 71 square miles of lake; don't tell me there's no where else for them to paddle.


You can have the last word if you want but I'm finished arguing this issue. We both know where the other stands and we both know we will not change each others' mind. Bottom line is, we must agree to disagree.

[Audiofn]

Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat. Again it has NOTHING to do with speed and everything to do with the person behind the wheel. More accidents happend at slow speeds then high ones, FACT. You will be no safer after the speed limit then you are now. In fact since the proponents of the speed limit say that there are so many people that are afraid of the lake now, after the speed limit the lake will have even more boats on it. This will make the lake even more unsafe as it will be even more overcrowded.......

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.

My "spin" came directly from NH Public Radio Transcripts - From August 14, 2001 broadcast:
“In the mid 90’s, when the private landowner decided it was time to sell the ramp, the association bought it, made some repairs, and invited the public to use it. Meanwhile, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department continued to look for an access point that it could own, in order to fulfill a state law that says it must. At one point, Fish and Game appeared to have found a spot. But neighbors objected, and when the state was slow to buy the land, the neighbors bought it first. The attending bad publicity helped convince John Thompson to get the lakes association involved."

"The Squam Lakes Association had offered its boat ramp to the state before, but the state rejected it, citing safety concerns, including a lack of public parking. Then the office of state planning took another look at the site. It brought in the department of transportation and other interested parties. Plans were drawn up to redesign the site to include two ramps, a dock, and parking for 26-vehicles. Finally, fish and game accepted the lake association’s offer to donate its ramp."

"For Richard Tichko, project leader for Fish and Game’s statewide access program, the dedication of a publicly owned ramp on Squam is a crowning achievement.” http://www.nhpr.org/node/1408

Back in 1999 HB-599 was introduced. This bill was for the “Acquisition of Sites for Public Access to Squam Lake. The fish and game department shall acquire no less than 4 sites, by eminent domain if necessary, to provide year-round public access to Squam Lake.” This bill still hasn’t made it out of the House committee. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/SofS_Arc...use/HB539H.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Just like your opinions (like the one where we need a speed limit to make the lake safer) are not facts.

It is indeed a fact that, with all else being equal, slower speeds are always safer than faster speeds. You can argue all you want, but this is a known fact.

I never said that everyone who exceeds 45 mph are traveling beyond their ability to see smaller boats in time – but it has been my experience that many are traveling at speeds that are faster than their abilities.

You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH. Show me the RSA that states that this is a right the state grants power boaters, and then I’ll believe you. The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters.

I never said it was.

Excused me! But you compared bicycles on the Interstate to kayaks on the main lake. Unlike the Interstate, the main lake is not exclusively for high speed travel – but for use of boats are all speeds – including not moving at all.

Don't start with the "we-were-here-first" crap because that just sounds like you're whining.

Yet you seem to have the attitude that those with the most horsepower should be able to travel at unlimited speeds, no matter how this negatively affects other boats on the lake. The fact remains that we WERE here first and we have the least negative impact on the lake and on people using the lake.

No one has ever said a kayaker or canoer can't use the lake but if you're going to venture into high-traffic (or higher-speed) areas, you have to accept that risk.

I have been nearly run over on the shore side of an island, because a high-speed boater didn’t stop to consider that a boat might be on the other side of the island when he took his boat into the area at high speed.

I have been nearly run over at the end of Center Harbor, roughly 200 feet off the shore, when a high speed boater was not paying enough attention to see our two kayaks.

I have been nearly run over by a boat traveling at high-speed within less than 15 minutes of launching my kayak on Winni.

ALL the above have happened on weekdays when visibility was excellent and boating traffic was low. So stop trying to put all the blame on paddlers and stop trying to tell me that this is just a normal risk that anyone who wants to paddle on the lake should just accept – because that is not only untrue, but NH law states that “it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses.” According to NH law, I have the right to kayak on the lake without putting my life at risk by the high speeds of powerboaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Evenstar: I have also raced sailboats, anything from Lasers to the most high performance boats out there such as Melges, and International 14's back when they were cool. I have been in more collisions in them then my power boat.

Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak. Yet I have had many close calls on winni with power boats that were traveling at high speeds. I have never had a powerboat on Squam unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone – mostly because Squam has a 40 mph daytime speed limit. So, it has been my own personal experience that SPEED has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Then you are also aware that sailboats race within inches of each other, so of course there are going to be some collisions – but that is when you’re racing.

But I have never come remotely close of having a sailboat run over me in my sea kayak.

Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...

Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Obviously, you have never ventured into the Broads during a sailboat race...

I race sailboats . . . I'm not about to kayak through the middle of a sailboat race.

Since this sub-Forum is about to be closed, it would be apposite to bid you farewell, since your agenda precluded your posting in the regular sections of this website.

My "agenda" is about kayaking on lakes in the Lakes Region. What is your agenda?

My first two posts were in the Site Support Forum and I have made numerous posts in the Boating Forum and In the General Discussion Forum - so please stop with the false accusations. Yes I have mostly posted in the Speed Limit Forum, but if you check, you'll also notice that over 90% of my posts are direct replies to comments or questions that were made to me directly. If you don't want me posting as much, stop directing comments at me.

Your post is the sort of stuff that has ruined this forum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by alsadad

Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

You neglected the other half of my statement: "The absence of a speed limit does not permit you the right to travel at speeds that are dangerous to other boaters." My reply to Wolfeboro_Baja was that powerboaters do not have the right to put kayaks at risk anywhere on the lake - including the main lake.

. . the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.

They would have to have a really good reason to limit paddlers on any lake, since no boaters have less of a negative impact on a lake and on people using a lake. To ban paddlers from using part of winni, just so a few high performance boaters can travel at unlimited speeds is not a good reason. Such a prohibition would never make it pass a public hearing. And public support for paddlers is increasing, as the number of NH residents who take up paddling is currently increasing each year.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

To ban paddlers from using part of winni, just so a few high performance boaters can travel at unlimited speeds is not a good reason.

Sounds reasonable enough to me

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My "agenda" is about kayaking on lakes in the Lakes Region. What is your agenda?

My first two posts were in the Site Support Forum and I have made numerous posts in the Boating Forum and In the General Discussion Forum - so please stop with the false accusations.

You started two threads: one in the Site Support Forum section and the other in the Speed Limit section.

Your first post, in the Site Support Forum section, was 04-02-2005, 12:03 PM

Your first Speed Limit post was 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM

You posted thirteen times, between then and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM, to that thread.

How many times have you posted to threads relating to kayaks, especially threads seeking advice, since your first post on this Forum? Almost three and a half years of posting and fewer times than you posted to a Speed Limit thread between 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM.

The evidence speaks for itself…

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Your first post, in the Site Support Forum section, was 04-02-2005, 12:03 PM. Your first Speed Limit post was 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM.
You posted thirteen times, between then and 04-05-2005, 11:26 PM, to that thread.

And nearly every single post that I made were to reply to posts that were directed at me. You see, you guys have this little game that you play with anyone new who posts in favor of a lake speed limit: you bombard them with replies, hoping that when they try to respond to everyone, that they will be banned for flooding; or that they will just give up, due to all the hostility. This is a pretty crummy way to treat a new member - yet I've witnessed it happen too many times here.

And the truth is that I posted in the Boating Forum on 04-04-2005, and nearly all my early posts were also in the Boating Forum since there was no Speed Limit Forum back then.

How many times have you posted to threads relating to kayaks, especially threads seeking advice, since your first post on this Forum?

Many of my posts are specifically related to kayaks. In fact, I probably have posted more information about kayaks than any member here.

The truth is that there are very few threads about kayaks. I could only find 6 threads in the Boating Forum that had the word “kayak” in the title:
Kayaking on Lake Winnipesaukee – which I posted in
Kayak Launch Sites – which I posted in
Jet Kayak boats
Kayak Cut in Half in Meredith – which I posted in
Smith River Canoe and Kayak Race
Kayak Racing

Other than Most of the advice given on this forum by the powerboaters is that kayaks don’t belong on the main lake. So it's no wonder that there aren't more kayak threads here.

Yes, the evidence does speaks for itself.

[alsadad]

Evenstar: You still haven’t showed me where NH law gives you the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds on any lake in NH.

Actually, in the absence of a law restricting speed, and since, as BI has pointed out, there is no reasonable and prudent standard in place, as of today I'm not sure the law places any restriction on the right of a boater to travel at any speed, other than NWZs, safe passage, etc. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.

RSA 270:1:II has been cited frequently as supporting the contention that a speed limit is needed on the lake. But it strikes me that this could be a two-edged sword. The RSA does not state that every body of water must support every possible use, but rather that the state's public waters, in total, should be regulated so as to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses." It seems to me that in theory, without getting to the political considerations, the appropriate officials could decide that kayaks, for example, have no place on Winnipesaukee, or at least on certain parts of the lake, just as they have decided that PWCs do not belong on certain bodies of water and that powerboats above a certain horsepower do not belong on other bodies of water. They could decide that if kayaking on the big lake is so bloody dangerous, then perhaps that activity should be prohibited or restricted, and in the interest of promoting the goals espoused in the RSA, designate some other place for safe kayaking. I guess I'm just saying file this under be careful what you ask for.

[VitaBene]

People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding and trying to get the last word in.

Can't we all just get along! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum.

Have a good day,

John

[Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

People- Have you been paying attention to Don at all. He is tired (that is how I read it anyway) of this foolish bickering on this sub forum; bickering that is starting to pervade other threads and forums on this site. At some point one of you has to be the bigger person and stop responding AFN trying to get the last word in.

Can't we all just get along! It is over- there were no winners. However, if we are not careful we will lose this fabulous forum.

Have a good day,

John

John

What do you mean by "there were no winners"!!!

Talk about trying to get the last word! If you want to stop the controversy then don't post controversial lies!

Bear Island won, WINNFABS won, Lake Winnipesaukee won, Sandy won, common sense won, 99% of the boaters on the lake won, I won!

There are lots of winners.

[BroadHopper]

The law is not an absolute law. It is arbitrary with 45/25 being a guide line. It is more of a reasonable and prudent law. And it is over in 2 years.

Having said that, The proponents didn't win because they want a permanent absolute law. The opponents didn't win because there is a guide line to their speeding. The lakefront property owners didn't win because of the erosion problem of large wakes due to 25 at night.

But overall, everyone wins as there is a reasonable and prudent law in place. I would like to see that law in place permanently. It will be an effective tool for enforcing safety on the lake. Along with the 150' rule.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The law is not an absolute law. It is arbitrary with 45/25 being a guide line. It is more of a reasonable and prudent law. And it is over in 2 years.

The 45/25 lake speed limit is no more of a guideline than NH highway speed limits are a guide line. The exact same legal language is used in both.

[GWC...]

Time to hold a wake...

Speaking of which, a prelude to the next line in the sand...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Islander

John

What do you mean by "there were no winners"!!!

Talk about trying to get the last word! If you want to stop the controversy then don't post controversial lies!

Bear Island won, WINNFABS won, Lake Winnipesaukee won, Sandy won, common sense won, 99% of the boaters on the lake won, I won!

There are lots of winners.

Islander,

Please- do not call me a liar- I have never posted a lie on this site and never will. Do not say things from your couch what you would not say to me or anyone else in person. In this case I take your comment very personally. The purpose of my post that you took issue with was to extend an olive branch to both sides of this issue- but obviously you did not get that.

Setting your personal attack aside- as I and others have said on this forum, this lake will change little based on a speed limit being imposed. I took a ride around the lake on my motorcycle today and stopped in the Weirs to see the progress on the repair work and to watch the traffic coming out of the Weirs channel. Guess what- I did not see a single boat exceeding what will be the new speed limit, though I did see one near T-boning due to a failure of a "boater" (the quotations are added to acknowledge that owning a boat does not in my eyes make one a boater) to understand the concept of stand on and give way as well as numerous violations of the 150' rule. I was there for a grand total of 10 minutes. It was a madhouse and will be after the speed limit goes into effect.

Do you think this new law will be enforced more stringently than the 150' rule? Do you think that the performance boats will disappear and Winnipesaukee will become Squam lake? If so, I heard there is a bridge for sale somewhere in NY that you may want to check out.

Sorry Don for getting pulled back into this debate but I could not let this one slide.

[Webbsatwinni]

I have not posted on the speed limit debate (mostly because I do not have the knowledge to speak intelligently about it) but have watched the back and forth. That said, I am on my deck drinking my morning coffee and I am glad to see a few GFBL boats that have not heard about the law or do not care, either way, I love to watch them go by in the morning and will be sad to see that part of the Winnipesaukee experience go away.

Just my two cents,

On a side note, my wife is happy saving all of the money I was dreaming of spending on a GFBL.

[Audiofn]

I was sitting on my dock this AM and along comes a pontoon boat wide open in the no wake zone not 15 feet from my dock. The last time a speed boat did that was...... never. Unfortunately I think that this law while for some was good intentioned and others had obvious alterior motives and others like BI made not quams about the issue and why they wanted the law past (at leate they were honest!! ) I just don't see this making anyone feel safer out there on the lake. I think that it is sad that while this law will likely do nothing to improve peoples feelings of safty on the lake it will get reintroduced and passed again. I really hope that people do feel safer but honestly I think that this will not help one bit. We still need more funding, we still need more education, we still need people to want to abide by the rules. Untill then nothing is really going to change.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The difference is that a high-speed powerboater can easily kill a kayaker – the opposite is not true. Many powerboaters on this forum have admitted that they often have trouble seeing kayaks – and traveling at high speeds just increases the danger of hitting one of us - and too many of us have had close calls.


The only time I have ever been in danger while kayaking are the times that highspeed powerboats have nearly run me over. And I have done Class II rapids, kayaked in ocean waters, and kayaked in cold weather. I oversee kayaking at my university. I am trained in ocean rescues and in first aid and CPR. I have taken an advanced paddling seminar and a costal navigation seminar. I’m an NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My team is on the water 6 days a week from the end of August until mid November - and we return to the water in late February. I know what I am doing on the water – and I know when I’m in danger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it is not your business. The reason that I am one of the few proponents of the speed limit on this forum is because of the way that the opponents here treat us. Most members who do support the speed limit are not about to put up with all the personal attacks and ridicule and false statements and outright lies that I have had to deal with here. Anyone who posts in this forum in support of the lake speed limit immediately becomes a target.

I wrote: “But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested”. So my reply was that I’ve paddled on winni more than 10 times. So you can stop trying to guess and you can stop making up false accusations about me. I answered your question. I HONESTLY don’t know how many times I have paddled on any NH lake – I paddle a LOT on a LOT of lakes and on the ocean. I have a hard enough time just keeping track of miles I paddle. I passed 1000 miles early in my 3rd summer of paddling (which is somewhere between 300 and 400 hours of paddling).


The last time I checked, winni was a NH lake – and that is roughly how far I have paddled JUST THIS SUMMER. Where did I write that winni was excluded from the NH lakes that I have paddled on this summer???


Because I’m a NH resident and would like to be able to paddle safely on my state’s largest lake – without having high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone – because they are going too fast to notice me. Geeze! How many times do I have to state my reasons here??? They haven’t changed, since the first time that I paddled on winni in 2005 (I didn’t buy my first kayak until 2004). And, as I wrote in my previous post: “I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.” In case you haven’t noticed, I and many others feel that winni is not currently a safe lake for paddlers – due to the high speeds of some powerboats.


I did answer your question the best I can – I stated that it was more than you suggested – so, in case you’re still having trouble: THIS MEANS MORE THAN 10 TIMES. I never lie, so I’m not going to just make up a number, when I honestly don’t know exactly. As Bear Islander stated, I actually have more right to post my views on the lake than any non-resident does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again I am being accused of doing something that I haven’t done. Interns are not allowed to push their own political views while working at the State House – I could not even email the Senators in support of this bill. I was allowed to testify at the House Committee Hearing only because it was held during my spring break (while interns had the week off).

My point about knowing most of the Senators is that I intimately know the process of hearings and on how much time is spent at collecting and reading data so that a Senator can make an informed vote. I do know that at least three of the Senators are avid kayakers – and one Senators told me that her husband was nearly run over by a high-speed powerboat on Winni. The Senators I know who voted for the bill are not the “spineless, noodleback hacks” that Seaplane Pilot accused them of being.

Evenstar,

Once again I agree. A high speed power boater can easily kill a kayaker. In fact almost all power boaters can easily kill a kayaker and the opposite is not true. Do you want to limit NH lakes to kayaks only. The fact is that there are laws in place that successfully keep power boaters from killing kayakers.

I have read your resume in previous posts and understand that you are an accomplished kayaker and sailor. I was not questioning your abilities and comfort level on the water, When I said,,, Perhaps all those who detail their fear filled lake experiences as support for speed limits, were just in to deep. I am sorry if you read it that way. I did not mean you.

The fact is that there are boats (power, sail, paddle) on NH lakes. These boats are ore owned and operated by both residents and tourists with various levels of experience and ability. Many are not at your level and may be in over there heads more than they realize. It is not right to limit everyone because some are simply inexperienced and afraid of the recreational activity they themselves choose to participate in.


I believe that everyone and anyone has the equal right to post their views regarding the lake, including BR. This is a lake forum not a state election. If residents have more right than non residents ...do some residents have more right than others. I like you am a resident of NH but I also own a summer place on this lake. You may want to check with BI but I don't think I have any more right than you.

Equal right to express does not mean that everything shared is held at equal value. For example: I have been water skiing with professional skiers and hold there ski advise higher than of my neighbor. I think that is what BR was trying to get at when he questioned your time on the one lake affected by the new speed limit. Winnipesaukee is in fact the only lake it applies to.

I know you feel things will be different next year on Winni and plan to visit more often. I dont think you will see much change at all. There will still be a few inexperienced boaters that come too close to you, just like there will still be some inexperienced kayakers that need to be rescued by BR.

Chase1