Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[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.