"Educating" those danged Winnipesaukee boaters

ApS · 12-05-2005, 05:48 AM

"Education" appears eight times in the first thread -- all posted by proponents of excess speed.

Recognize this slogan?

Quote:

"Don't Learn Driving By Accident"

That's Tres Martin's school for performance boaters -- a school that might get your "Offshore" insurance premiums lower into four-digit figures -- if enrolling and completing it.

Any performance boater HERE ever enrolled? (And you guys did have a "bad 2005 summer", incidentally).

Probably not.

(It's everybody else who needs "Education").

Fat Jack · 12-05-2005, 10:02 AM

Acres / Bear Lover / Islander,

Notice that virtually no others of the 65-70% of the Granite Staters who want a speed limit on their lakes are bothering to join in this "debate"? (notice the quotes around "debate"?) Don't waste your breath, no one else is. Let these people turn this forum into the region's own go-fast site and talk amongst themselves about the reasons we shouldn't have our speed limit on our lake. It lets them vent.

This reminds of the argument I had with the guy I caught hunting in my back yard a few years back. I allowed bow-hunting at the time, but caught this guy with a muzzleloader. He actually argued with me for ten minutes about how muzzleloaders were just as safe as bows, how careful he was, how he had taken the hunter safety course, etc, etc, etc. Finally, I just said "get off my land and don't come back, even with a bow". He could not grasp the notion that it was my land and I could set the rules, for whatever reason I chose. He wrongly assumed that he could gain the right to muzzleload here by winning an argument with me.

The poll that has these guys so upset was done by a very legitimate polling house and has a statistical accuracy of 4%. 66% (plus or minus 4%) of the registered voters in NH answered "Favor" to the question "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?". There was no misleading and no chance for re-interpretation here...the question was very simple and direct. Only 22% (plus or minus 4%) answered "Oppose". Even 68% of the Republican voters that these people claim to represent answered "Favor" (as I would have). And after all of the statewide publicity that this bill generated over the year, it's hard to fathom that these respondents did not know what "law" this question was alluding to.

I also have to wonder why these people are not publicizing the results of the poll they had done? but then, I guess it must have just told them the same thing (plus or minus 4%).

And it's interesting to see how they are now poo-pooing the RR&D recommendation that they wooed so vigorously and unsuccessfully. This group of dedicated and qualified legislators studied this bill intently for 10 months, held numerous public hearings and public and private meetings, read thousands of letters, emails, and publications, and did not just recommend passage of HB162, but broadened and strengthened it to include all lakes and to attach violations to the offender's driving record. And they did this in bi-partisan fashion, with 3 of the 13 Republican members voting to support the strictest version. What a statement!

And it is so interesting to look back at last spring's threads and compare the shift in the debate from the non-compromising "no limits" to the compromising "why 45?". What came so resoundingly out of this summer's study, from both sides, was the indisputable fact that current laws, like the 150' rule that has been on the books for forty years and the certification course that is already in effect for virtually every last one of these arguers, are not working. And that the current MP strategy is not working. And that the safety department is out of touch with what is happening on and to this lake. While the safety director made clear that he saw no problems that needed fixing, the populace screamed out that Winnipesaukee is just an accident waiting to happen if some meaningful changes are not made now.

Now let them vent...its good for them. But they can't hunt on my land, even with a bow.

jrc · 12-05-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...65-70% of the Granite Staters who want a speed limit on their lakes ...

While watching Chris Matthews or some other screaming head politico, my wife lamented about us having a divided country. The election was 50-50, some issue is 50-50, some other issue is 50-50. I told her my opinion is that all the easy questions are already decided and not worth debating. No need to scream about the 60-40,70-30,80-20 issues. Those questions are quickly decided and although a few may gripe about them, no one really expects to change them.

So if the poll cited is correct, then this issue will be quickly implemented. Our elected officials will pass a law this winter. The opposition will fret for awhile, but finally realize it's futile. Is this what you predict? What if it doesn't work out that way?

Lakewinniboater · 12-05-2005, 01:01 PM

There have been and will continue to be more lies and misinterpretations with this subject here and on other sites.

It will be what it will be. You are right in one aspect though..... not worth debating here.

I still believe that what was offered as a solution was best. Reasonable and Prudent! This leaves it to the MP's to judge in any case for ANY infraction whether they think the infraction should be ELIVATED to above a speeding violation to breaking the "reasonable and prudent" rule which currently is more severe (misdemeanor).

However, I am sure that we don't want to talk about this here either. After all, this is about people that want to pass laws on "fear" and "discrimination".

It is really disappointing that after so much progress in the USA that we can go back to passing laws without factual basis.

My hopes are that once the House gets this in January that they throw it out completely. However, I am sure that the group that brought this and the old Sound Issue up will find another way in a couple of years to stir the pot.

Too bad some of those people weren't taught to simply enjoy life and what we have been given. Focus on the positive.

JayDV · 12-05-2005, 02:11 PM

I'm sure many of the Forum Folk, including myself, are very interested in the arguments presented for both sides. And I for one recognize the very difficult decision process to come to a decision either way, and the "other side's" disappointment level when a decision is reached. Couple all that with a bunch of politicians making a decision based on how they deem the public will fare best, generally speaking, and (if you will excuse my citing ametaphor from an e-mail I received) you may end up at his point.

The video e-mail had a fellow sitting and reading the story "Twas the night before Christmas". The word changes throughout the story-telling were to make the story as politically correct as possible for 2005 standards. To keep it brief, this is only the last lines, but you will get the drift.

The "special person of non-specific holiday" cried out as he rode off through the skies, on his "non-specific holiday vehicle powered by organically fueled four-hooved creatures".
"Lady of the evening!, lady of the evening!, lady of the evening! Merry "non-specific holiday" to all, and to all a good night!"

Let's take care not to have others refine us to the point of losing the point.

For now, enjoy the winter, and holidays, because these will soon only be memories.

Boater · 12-05-2005, 02:28 PM

Lakewinniboater, why is it so hard to understand that not everyone sees it your way? No one is "discriminating". This is about safety, not discrimination. What's next, the ridiculous "you're just jealous" argument?

If you don't agree that it is a safety issue that's fine and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Just leave out the inflamatory words like "lies" and "discrimination".

No matter how much you scoff at your opponents the poll results in the other thread can't be ignored. Most people asked support a reasonable speed limit on inland lakes. If I was a legislator that wasn't directly involved with the issue that would carry a lot of weight. If those opposing hb162 have a poll with different results they should get it out there fast!

I won't get involved in the bickering but I do enjoy reading the point-counterpoint. Thanks to Skip, Mee-n-Mac, Woodsy and others for some interesting reading.

Fat Jack · 12-05-2005, 02:58 PM

I'm confused. Which side was the reference to "lies and misrepresentations" referring to?

Mee-n-Mac · 12-05-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boater

Lakewinniboater, why is it so hard to understand that not everyone sees it your way? No one is "discriminating". This is about safety, not discrimination. What's next, the ridiculous "you're just jealous" argument?

If you don't agree that it is a safety issue that's fine and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Just leave out the inflamatory words like "lies" and "discrimination".

Well is it about safety ... it depends. For some it is, for other's its clearly not and that's partly the reason why this issue is so emotional. On the safety side people say the lake is not safe (due to speed) and the counter argument is that if that is true why doesn't it show up in the accident statisics and MP reports. I often wonder if this specific point/counterpoint* doesn't fall into the catagory of it being that there's a 1 in XXX chance of being killed out there and getting the following 2 responses; "1 in XXX, that's waaaay too high" or "1 in XXX, there's more chance I'll be killed slipping in my bathtub, why get worried". Then there are the people who aren't saying it's unsafe but rather that they're afraid. I'm not sure how to address their issues because I don't quite understand where they're coming from. Simply saying they're afraid off being run-over and that the speed limit resolves this doesn't quite make sense to me but I can't resolve, or at least better define, the difference w/o the aforementioned understanding.

On the non-safety side ... there's ample evidence that some people just don't want "those boats" or "them people" not for some safety reason but rather just because. And that is going to piss some people off. Then it's no longer a debate about factual matters but rather a contest of wills. A fair corollary to the whole thing is gun control issues. You've got legitimate issues and you've got people labelling everyone who owns a gun as a "nut" (and to be fair of course they're are some nuts, there always is and will be).

What I wish people on both sides would remember is that neither group is a monolithic block, to be defined by their fringe elements. I concern myself less with the (IMO) illegitimate positions and try to see if there's some way to address the legitmate concerns.

*ooops forgot this part - if only the perjoratives would be as funny as the old SNL skits; "Jane you ignorant ....".

Mee-n-Mac · 12-05-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"Education" appears eight times in the first thread -- all posted by proponents of excess speed.

Recognize this slogan?
That's Tres Martin's school for performance boaters -- a school that might get your "Offshore" insurance premiums lower into four-digit figures -- if enrolling and completing it.

Any performance boater HERE ever enrolled? (And you guys did have a "bad 2005 summer", incidentally).

Probably not.

(It's everybody else who needs "Education").

So let me propose the following (not original to me) concept then. What if people who wanted to boat at speeds over ZZ mph were required to have a "performance license" ? Extra training and certification, specific to high speed boating not racing, required as well as a means of letting the MP know that such a license was present onboard the boat that just went by. License collects points and gets rescinded for too many moving violations. You're then restricted to boat at pedestrian speeds. People not wanting to go faster then ZZ don't have to bother with the whole thing. I've left out many details of course but what do people think of the general idea ?

BTW - same idea proposed many years ago for autos

Dave R · 12-05-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"Education" appears eight times in the first thread -- all posted by proponents of excess speed.

Recognize this slogan?
That's Tres Martin's school for performance boaters -- a school that might get your "Offshore" insurance premiums lower into four-digit figures -- if enrolling and completing it.

Any performance boater HERE ever enrolled? (And you guys did have a "bad 2005 summer", incidentally).

Probably not.

(It's everybody else who needs "Education").

Those of us advocating better education or at least better enforcement of existing laws instead of speed limits, don't necessarily own (or even care for/about) performance boats. I certainly fall into that category. I also had the best Summer of my life in 2005...

I have seen far more boneheaded moves at well under 45 MPH than I have at elevated speeds. That's why I feel the way I do about the situation.

You must have some photos of dumb moves at slowish speeds in more conventional boats you could post.

Fat Jack · 12-05-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

What if people who wanted to boat at speeds over ZZ mph were required to have a "performance license" ? Extra training and certification, specific to high speed boating

If they are that skilled, should we exempt them from the safe passage law too? Why not? And how about those people who seem to be able to hold their alchohol better than the rest, should we allow them a higher blood alcohol limit? Let's base all legal limits on personal capacity and skill. Then let's make sure we have at least one cop assigned to every citizen, to keep track of it all.
Or maybe we can just accept the fact the the good people of NH want a speed limit on their lake, even for you, no matter how good you think you can drive. When I'm drifting worms off the east side of Welch and see a big 15000 pound bow heading straight at me at 90MPH, I'm jumping overboard. I'm not stopping to ponder whether this guy might have some special James Bond type license.

By the way, I have a really good appetite. Do you think I deserve bigger patties in my Big Mac?

Mee-n-Mac · 12-05-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

If they are that skilled, should we exempt them from the safe passage law too? Why not?

Nope if for no other reason than that limit also places a zone around the unmoving boat wherein the swimmers can be safe from other boats, which at any speed much above NWS pose a reasonable threat. There are other reasons as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

And how about those people who seem to be able to hold their alchohol better than the rest, should we allow them a higher blood alcohol limit? Let's base all legal limits on personal capacity and skill. Then let's make sure we have at least one cop assigned to every citizen, to keep track of it all.

I assume, other than the flame bait rhetoric, that you have a problem with personal limits for practical reasons. In the situation I'm proposing I have a way that could be practical, though I've not disclosed it. The onus falls on the performance boater not the general public. No need for a unreasonable measures to be taken (such a cop for every person). Let me ask a theoretical question though, if a way could be found to individually determine whether each person had had too much to drink and then advertise that fact on his or her car, would you be against it ? If a practical way could be found to determine and convict (or acquit) each person depending on whether they really were impaired (or not) would you not want that ? If your objection is that in every case ever imaginable, everyone should be held the same limits then I can't help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Or maybe we can just accept the fact the the good people of NH want a speed limit on their lake, even for you, no matter how good you think you can drive. When I'm drifting worms off the east side of Welch and see a big 15000 pound bow heading straight at me at 90MPH, I'm jumping overboard. I'm not stopping to ponder whether this guy might have some special James Bond type license.

I guess it all depends on how far away he is when you jump doesn't it. If you care to jump when he's a mile away, be my guest and get wet. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you when you claim you had to. And for the case when you really do have to jump, doesn't make a difference if it's 15000 lbs or 3000 lbs; 90 mph or 44.9 mph ? It just boils down to when. Now if the concept doesn't sound airtight enough for you then I don't see how the speed limit appeases you. In either case theres an enforcement portion that needs to be effective for it to work. No enforcement means nobody will bother with the "James Bond" license nor obey the speed limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

By the way, I have a really good appetite. Do you think I deserve bigger patties in my Big Mac?

Go ahead, buy two Big Macs, you deserve it. (I'd opt for the double quarter pounder myself).

ApS · 12-06-2005, 05:44 AM

Well, I've managed to stay away for 24 hours from this "educating the go-fasters" thread! It appears that just the suggestion of Tres Martin's high-speed boating school scared off all the Winnipesaukee go-fasters. (Talk about "Fear")!

Last week, Tres Martin himself famously wrote of this summer's go-fasts having "...all the weekend accidents".

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

So let me propose the following...What if people who wanted to boat at speeds over ZZ mph were required to have a "performance license" ? Extra training and certification, specific to high speed boating..."

Somebody (meaning Mee'n'Mac), sees a speed problem on Lake Winnipesaukee!

Addendum: Island Girl is probably correct about the location. It is from a large collection of boat wreecks targeting speed. But even www.winnipesaukee.com has only a tiny fraction of "instructional" photographs from similar Winnipesaukee "incidents". Many of the worst fatal Winnipesaukee wrecks occurred at night anyway.

BTW I: Both Lake Travis (TX) and Lake Conroe (TX) have night time speed limits now due to Littlefield-type accidents.

BTW II: But look at the "signature" I found at a Lake Travis (TX) thread:

Quote:

Please sign the petition against a proposed 45mph speed limit on Lake Winni in NH, even if you don't boat there or are from another state. Not letting this happen to others is a big step to not letting it happen to you. Copy and paste the following into your browser:
www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/oppose_HB162/

Whose New Hampshire poll to believe, anyway. Theirs?

Island Girl · 12-06-2005, 07:16 AM

Sure does not look like Winnipesaukee to me! Looks a bit like a Texas lake.

Fat Jack · 12-06-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Girl

Looks a bit like a Texas lake.

Because we all know that the water is slipperier in Texas.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-06-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Well, I've managed to stay away for 24 hours from this "educating the go-fasters" thread! It appears that just the suggestion of Tres Martin's high-speed boating school scared off all the Winnipesaukee go-fasters. (Talk about "Fear")!

Last week, Tres Martin himself famously wrote of this summer's go-fasts having "...all the weekend accidents".

Next:

Somebody (meaning Mee'n'Mac), sees a speed problem on Lake Winnipesaukee!
{snip}

My, my, my what a tangled web you weave. No need for you to put words in my mouth, I can speak just fine thanks. First let's put straight why I suggested what I did. There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake. What exactly is at the root of this I can't say. However it certainly seems likely to me that one thing they could be worried about is whether the person at the helm of the boat type that scares them, is qualified to pilot a boat at that speed. OK I say, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys. I'm almost always been willing to put forth some extra effort to make somebody else feel better. Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course and test.

Second, to correct your misstatement above, I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was travelling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed. I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

ApS · 12-08-2005, 08:37 PM

Mee-n-Mac: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake.

ApS: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more.

Mee-n-Mac: What exactly is at the root of this I can't say.

ApS: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity.

Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago:
All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location).

Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision.

Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread?

Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42566

Mee-n-Mac: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys.

ApS: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch.

Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"?

Mee-n-Mac: I'm almost always been willing to put forth some extra effort to make somebody else feel better.

ApS: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled?

Mee-n-Mac: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course and test.

ApS: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness.

The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months.

Mee-n-Mac: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed.

ApS: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid.

But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass.

I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree?

Mee-n-Mac: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

ApS: Of course, one would.

The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses.

JDeere · 12-08-2005, 08:58 PM

Good job on your post and thanks for making an effort to explain to those who seem unable to grasp the concept.

Cal · 12-08-2005, 11:08 PM

I have a hard time grasping the concept of aps not likeing someone elses rights infringing on his...but it's ok for his rights to infringe on someone elses

I guess that falls under the "I don't like it , so you can't do it law"

The funny part is , all the bickering on here isn't going to change anything. It's either gonna pass or not pass. If it doesn't pass , there will be those who will keep at it. If it does pass , I'm not sure if things will change a whole lot...until they go after the mega cruisers then jet skis.
Just maintain a good sense of humor , for we have met the ememy , and they are us

pm203 · 12-08-2005, 11:17 PM

I really dont believe it will change much.I will still use my boat ,cruising around 45-50 ish most of the time ,as I normally do and will still do 60-90 in the appropriate areas. You will still hear my twin engines(muffled of course) and have to deal with enfocement. I still cannot believe some of the things I read here. You cant have it your way.

SIKSUKR · 12-09-2005, 07:52 AM

I hear you Cal.I think the posts speak volumes to which ones are comman sense and which ones are....well....if you have comman sense you know what I'm talking about.I think it's pretty clear.

ITD · 12-09-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{snip}

ApS: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity.

{snip}

ApS: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid.

But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass.

{snip}

The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses.

Bold added for emphasis.

Bingo, I've resisted posting here, but I just had to point this out. Clear case of I've got mine you can't have yours. Notice the mentality, too many boats, chemicals (alcohol and drugs), Mass. (Massachusetts = bad, I guess Florida is ok) and vast majority New Hampshire boaters are OK. People wonder why this arguement gets so emotional. The most telling part is too many boats. The problem is the speed limit won't fix this problem. Large wakes, speed limit won't fix. Chemicals, speed limit won't fix. Massachusetts, speed limit won't fix. Captain Bonehead veering toward you, speed limit won't fix (trust me 45 is just as scary as 65 when someone does this).
The blame Massachusetts mentality shows the true colors, here's an idea put up a fence at the border that'll solve the problem just like the speed limit will. NOT!!!!!!!!!

Skip · 12-09-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

...Clear case of I've got mine you can't have yours. Notice the mentality, too many boats, chemicals (alcohol and drugs), Mass. (Massachusetts = bad, I guess Florida is ok) and vast majority New Hampshire boaters are OK. People wonder why this arguement gets so emotional....The blame Massachusetts mentality shows the true colors, here's an idea put up a fence at the border that'll solve the problem just like the speed limit will.... NOT!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm,

I posted something along these lines once before, but given recent comments I think it bears repeating.

There is no doubt amongst us fortunate enough to peruse these pages that Winnipesaukee.com is not only the premier Lakes Region website, but one of the best NH based websites out there.

That said, isn't it ironic that some folks (thankfully, a tiny minority) continue their baseless Massachussetts bashing via a web site hosted for us by a good family, from Massachussetts?

'Nough said......

Merry Christmas all, and a special thankyou and wish for the best of the Season to webmaster Don & his family,

Skip

Mee-n-Mac · 12-09-2005, 10:18 AM

This is a long one, partly because I couldn't find a way to keep the continuity of thought w/o including a lot of the prior posts. Sorry 'bout that.

I said: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake.

ApS replied: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more.

Is it because nobody likes to go out or because people are afraid ? It's one thing to not like going out on the lake and another to be afraid to. If you want to support legislation just to change the lake so it's more appealing to you, that's your choice, but please don't use fear as a tactic to get there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: What exactly is at the root of this (referring to aforementioned fear) I can't say.

ApS replied: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity. Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago:
All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location). Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision.

Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread?

Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home.

I can agree that there's more boats than I'd like to see* on the lake on the weekends but HB-162 doesn't address that does it. But let's pretend that it magically does, now those boats that are staying home will come and you're back to having too many boats. HB-162 doesn't address alcohol nor tonnage nor Mass (whatever you mean by that), it only addresses velocity. The majority of complaints in the "MP Please help us" thread mention 150' and RoW violations and wakes with 1 person complaining about speeds of 35+ in addition to those and 1 opining speed limits are a good idea (on weekends). Slow people down and they (150' and RoW violations) will still remain. Solve those (if ever possible) and I wonder if speed remains a real issue. While I fully understand that there are many issues and HB-162 isn't expected by even it's most ardent supporters to solve them all, let's try to stick to the topic at hand. Whether the lake is in “anarchy”, and how a minority group can cause and maintain that state is another debate. My question was specific to why are people afraid of the speeds present on the lake. You push a speed law to control speed. As has been amply demonstrated in prior posts the Littlefield incident wouldn't have been prevented had HB-162 been in effect that night. Now there may be good enough reason for a night time speed limit, Littlefield aside, though I think the 25 mph number is a tad low. I have less of a problem with that part of HB-162. That said I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference.

*I'd like to by able to get dock space whenever, wherever I go. I'd like to find anchorage away from somebody's house or other boats. I'm not going to push for legislation to get rid of other people so I can have those things though. That sounds a lot like "ME, ME, ME".

ps - Now you can explain why people from Mass are part of the problem and why NH (or FL) people aren't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys.

ApS replied: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch.

Nothing wrong it other than it's in FL and costs $2500. Perhaps something closer and less $$ might be possible. I was hoping to see if something along those lines in any way could be a potential solution, but if those people who are concerned about boat speed aren't primarily concerned about the qualifications of the driver, but rather about something else, then it won't help. I was less interested in what the GFBL crowd thought of the idea and more interested in what the thoughts of the pro HB-162 people were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ApS replied: Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"?

Sure we do and they're in all types of boats. What I was suggesting was a means of feedback/control and quite frankly it's probably needed for all boaters not just the GFBL crowd (which was part of my suggestion). If you think it's really anarchy on the lake then I can think of 3 reasons why. One is ignorance and there's a lot of that. You only attack that through education. Another is indifference and fines for infractions are a way to attack that. If the present fine structure is insufficient (and a lot of people would say it is) then it should get addressed. Lastly we have malfeasance and to attack that you've got to have increasing fines for repeated offenses and the possibility of removing the offender from the lake (which is one function of a license). In the latter 2 reasons you need to have effective enforcement to catch the offenders. HB-162 only adds another task for the MP to accomplish. Without the progressivity or removal, HB-162 can do nothing more than hand out tickets of a different variety. The anarchy you describe will continue. Why would anyone who believes that the present tickets and enforcement is insufficient, believe some more tickets will change anything. If you want to agree that additional changes, along the lines of what I've mentioned, are also necessary then I'm led to ask what will HB-162 then additionally accomplish. At best you get some people (by your admission a minority) to slow down but are you really safer ? I don't think so because what I see more often than speed in excess of 45, is operation, at speeds under 45, inappropriate for the situation. HB-162 won’t stop that. A radar trap won't stop anything under 45 but a visible MP boat does (except for the aforementioned ignorant people). I'd rather have the MP boat sitting where needed than off in those few places where a radar trap will be fruitful.

BTW : I do detect a note of sarcasm and while that's just fine for your submissions to the Op-Ed page how about trying to drop it for while. Frankly all it does is make you appear to be "donkey" and has no place in any intelligent discussion of the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ApS replied: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled?

If there's a point you're trying to make in the above, let alone one relevant to HB-162 I'm failing to see it. If I recall the incident the cop in question was also alleged to have been drunk (I detect a common theme here). He had a 28' center console fishing boat and ran through a speed zone and crashed into the docks. If I were to use your type of "logic" it would be to say this shows that speed limits don't work. Certainly didn't stop him did it. The rest of your statement sounds more like your usual tirade that anyone who has either $$ or a larger boat than you deem acceptable is lacking in moral character. They’re all drunks or lewd or rude or “entitled” therefore we don’t have to be fair to them. Let’s not do the hard work of separating the good from the bad, let just toss the whole bunch out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course (refering to my hypothetical course and test above) and test.

ApS replied: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness.
The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months.

What is it (above) which is not like the thorough disciplined testing of Germany or England ? The hypothetical high speed course and test I was suggesting ? How would you know ? As to nyctalopia ... well this is an interesting point. Is your answer to night vision problems to slow people down so we have slow blind people out on the lake ? If not why are you mentioning it in this context ? If you think it's enough of an issue to mention, do you think there's another way to address that problem ? Moreover I'd really like to know if it's your belief that the 2% is enough of a threat, both in numbers and severity of impairment, to us other boaters out there that it deserves concern ? Or do you have some other concern re:nyctalopia ? Honestly, I'd like to understand because you keep bringing it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed.

ApS replied: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid.
But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass. I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree?

Aaaah … the rich can afford to be unafraid. And since they have so much money they are all cavalier about how they handle their boats. No need to pay attention, we’ll let the lawyers fix it. That’s their thinking is it ? We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that point. As to why those who look up are afraid … you seem to forget I had much smaller boats (Minimax) as well. I have a sailboard too. I’ve borrowed my friends SeaDoo GTX and gone out and about on the lake. I can understand the trepidation some may feel when in a small craft around larger boats, bobbing up and down in the waves. It’s easy to wonder if the guy can see you. But if I’m looking up at the other guy then it’s almost certain he can see me (assuming he’s bothering to look). It’s easier to see from the high seat than it is from a low seat. I’ve got no reason to believe that the “big” boat guy is any less, or any more, attentive than the “small” boat guy. So thinking about it why should I be more afraid of the boat I’m looking up at vs the one I’m looking directly at ? Why aren’t people afraid of the average bowrider ? Why is he assumed to be more attentive than the other guy (your reason aside) ? Remember that guy this summer in the 23’ SeaRay, ran into the pontoon boat ? This is the part I don’t understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

ApS replied: Of course, one would. The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses

And this is another perplexing part to me. Unless you believe this minority, by their speed alone, is causing the majority of the problems, the “anarchy”, why would somebody propose a speed limit first, before some other measures that would affect the majority who are part of the problem ? OK I say, perhaps their priorities are odd but it may still be a legitimate issue. And while I can see the potential for high speed to cause an accident (involving another boat) I don’t think you’re anywhere near that potential at 45 or even much higher. In other situations (like the Weirs when it’s crowed) the potential can be realized at speeds under 45. Looked at impartially it appears that HB-162 imposes a limitation on those who use good judgment in hopes to control those who don’t. From what I’ve seen the majority of those who aren’t using good judgment aren’t traveling above 45 when they are being “bad boys”. So HB-162 punishes the many (of that minority) for the sins of the few (in and out of that minority) while not giving law enforcement a tool that can be used to cure the biggest piece of the speed portion of the “anarchy” problem. Somebody slaloming between boats at less than 45 mph isn’t going to be affected by HB-162. And it’s the best solution to the speed part of the problem we all could imagine ? If you believe that any boat out in the Broads on a normal sunny day traveling at 55 mph is going to run over an FLL sized boat that might cross its path, short of good luck, then you should support HB-162. If anyone thinks this isn’t automatically dangerous then you should be asking for a better, fairer solution. And if it’s your belief that everyone with a “speedboat” or expensive boat is somehow morally lacking, as seems to be ApS’s view, then I have nothing polite to say about that.

jrc · 12-09-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

This is a long one...

I can't believe the patience you have with this poster, I don't think it will be fruitful.

For some posters, I think their point of view is colored by their point of view of the lake. One poster resides near the entrance to Winter Harbor, which has become a very busy part of the lake on weekends. For some reason, every boater I know says Winter Harbor is the best place to tube. Add in a popular cruiser anchoring spot at Johnsons Cove, and large mouth fishing near The basin, then try to squeeze all the those boats by his house. Another poster resides near the Bear Island Post office, every boat from Sheps, the channel or Paugus bay, goes by his house on the way to Braun Bay. So they live on the lake equivalent of a busy street corner. Unfortunately, the rules necessary for busy corners don't make sense for the wide open spaces on the rest of the lake.

Skip · 12-09-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

...I can't believe the patience you have... I don't think it will be fruitful...

Ah, C'mon folks......its almost Christmas, we need to look at the brighter sides of things!

Let me be the first to start the positive trend by finding the good in narrow agendas;

You know what they say is the great thing about a narrow agenda???? Its much much more easier to see through!

(and before anyone gets upset and hits the post report button, I am only referring to the narrow agendas of the extremists and zealots at each end of the spectrum of this debate. I truly believe that there is a great number of people in the middle on this issue still wishing to borrow from both sides to come up with a reasonable solution to the occasional Lake overcrowding issues)

Merry Christmas,

Skip

ITD · 12-09-2005, 06:07 PM

Skip,

How refreshing in this world of increasing PC to be wished Merry Christmas in such a public way. Kudos to you .

And a very Merry Christmas to you.

ITD

Mee-n-Mac · 12-09-2005, 06:27 PM

"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

I can't believe the patience you have with this poster, I don't think it will be fruitful.
{snip}
For some posters, I think their point of view is colored by their point of view of the lake.

Oh I'm under no delusion that I'll ever convince ApS to change his view. I'm not even considering that. No I just try to respond and present what I see as the truth. Others, as you say, have differing viewpoints depending on where they are on the lake. They're not wrong in their appraisal per se and probably none of us have a large enough "view" to put everything into it's proper context. So I try to listen, reject those fringe element views (which as Skip points out come from both sides) and find some way to attack/solve those views/problems that I think are reasonable. After all a general description of what I do for a living is "proffesional problem solver". In that respect I see HB-162 as well intended but flawed legislation. It's not surprising given it's conception, gestation and birth violated all the good principles of problem solving. I am of the belief that some better legislation can help and can be found. When I get a chance (and that may be soon given the snow) I intend (did promise) to put some SWAGs into the "compromises" thread. Lastly I think most of us can identify with the issues raised in this discussion, we do differ in our response to them.

As to patience .... ha ... I'm certainly not a patient person (just ask "Mee"). I've just been "trained" properly.

Try presenting to some company VP on why he's so full of S.... errr ... "misguided in his approach to the situation". Or going to the Pentagon to tell some Admiral that he couldn't find his A ..... aaahh... has not been "properly briefed by his staff". Now that's "patience" .... this is just a discussion forum, a bunch of us all shooting the S ... errr ... "fecal matter".

KonaChick · 12-10-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pm203

I really dont believe it will change much.I will still use my boat ,cruising around 45-50 ish most of the time ,as I normally do and will still do 60-90 in the appropriate areas. You will still hear my twin engines(muffled of course) and have to deal with enfocement. I still cannot believe some of the things I read here. You cant have it your way.

So you're saying even if the law is passed you will blatanly break the law whenever you feel inclined to. You wonder why people feel the way they do? Look in the mirror...

Woodsy · 12-12-2005, 11:27 AM

I have been thinking about this for awhile now. Is speed really the issue or is it ignorance/lack or courtesy?

The speed limit is a pretty divisive issue, and just about everyone on this board knows why I am against HB-162. I want to hear from the HB-162 supporters, how exactly is a speed limit going to fix ANY of the issues on the lake? If speed were the issue, we would have collisions and accidents to point to and subsequently address. But we dont. So I am thinking the real problem is a lack of knowledge, specifically, the rules of the road and common boater courtesy. So how do we educate the masses? The legislature has passed a law requiring most (not all) who boat on Lake Winni to posess a Safe Boater Certificate by 2008.

I think the real problem is that the Safe Boater Law doesn't go quite far enough. How is it that anybody with a credit card that has room for a $2500 damage claim, with absolutely no boating knowledge or experience boating at all, can rent a Jetski, or 18' Bowrider or large 20+ Pontoon boat and NOT be required to have a Safe Boater Certificate? Its absolutely insane to think that a person is capable of driving any boat safely after a 20 question checklist. But thats allowed? Why? Because the marina owners and hoteliers want to rent boats and make money, regardless of the hazard they they are creating for everyone else. Then they have the chutzpah (Merrill and Rusty) to complain when a rental boater (with absolutely no prior boating experience) gets mad at them and thinks the lake is dangerous. Of course the boat renter thinks Lake Winni is dangerous! He has no prior safe boating education, no prior boating experience and he has decided to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to the tune of $200/hr or so plus whatever money they make on the inevitable damage claim! Rusty & Merrill are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of my personal freedom!

Daytrippers are also exempted from the law... so anyone with a boat not registered in NH, can launch it and go with a complete ignorance of NH boating rules and regulations! Sure there is a time limit imposed, 14 days, but who is tracking that? Most states do not have a 150' safe passage law like we do.

I propose the following....

1. New ANNUAL sticker (say $25) that is required for ALL watercraft used upon Lake Winnipesaukee, no exeptions. Thus includes powerboats of all kinds, kayaks, sailboats, canoes, PWC's. If you want to use the lake, you need to have a sticker. In order to purchase a sticker you would need to have successfully completed the safe boaters course or at the minimum, the rental course/questionaire. Initially there would be two colors... 1 color (green) indicates successful completion of the full safe boater course, 1 color (red) indicates completion of the rental course. After 2008 all boats registered in NH and used on Lake Winnipesaukee would be required to have the green sticker. Day trippers & vacationers would need to get a sticker for thier boats at a marina, and take the rental course/questionaire in order to purchase a sticker for thier boats (say $10 for a weeklong yellow sticker with the date of use printed on it). This gives the MP an easy visual check that the owner of the boat has been at least minimally educated on the NH rules & regulations pertaining to safe boating. The statute could also include that the owner of a boat be held liable for the the driver of the boats actions. This would help insure that the boat owner would inform anyone who was driving his boat of the rules etc.

You could breakdown the cost of the program, marinas get a percentage for admin fees, a percentage goes to MP to cover the cost of administering the program, and the bulk goes to the MP for use specifically on Lake Winnipesaukee. (Hiring more officers, new equipment etc, dedicated to Lake Winni.)

3. No sticker = FINE say $100.00, (you gotta make it painful or people won't care.) You could possibly make the fine payable at the marina when the offending boat goes and gets a sticker... fine would have to be paid before sticker issued? not sure if thats feasible without a seriously expensive computer system, but its an idea.

4. Study the areas of the Lake with the most congestion, and look at ways to control the boat traffic. Initially try NWZ's, but if the congestion persists, perhaps weekend only "safety zones" where a reduced speed is mandated.

5. Study the current noise law and perhaps reduce it somewhat. Noise seems to be a BIG part of the issue. Remove the restriction on switchable muffler systems. Have max db you can't exceed, but if you can make it quieter than the maximum, so as not to disturb your neighbors, I don't see why that should be illegal.

Woodsy

jrc · 12-12-2005, 12:57 PM

I can't find an exemption for daytrippers. Unless your talking about the general exemption for people holding similiar credentials from other states. IMHO that's a pretty small hole.
I'm not sure I want to pay an extra fee, but I like the idea of a visible indication of compliance, I know at least a dozen people that are flaunting the law. They plan to plead ignorance and just pay the fine if that doesn't work. Plus, there is a general lack of awareness of the law. The MP should be sitting at launch ramps giving out tickets or at least warnings.

The whole rental boat temporary certification is scary. The worst part is that a lot of rentals happen at the Weirs. Can you imagine, it's your first time operating a boat, it's a Saturday afternoon, in July, you have a eight people in 19' outboard and your crossing Weirs bay. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Same goes for Jetskis. I really can't understand how boat rental places manage to stay insured.

Finally on noise. Loud boats and motorcycles are a pet peeve of mine. For some reason NH law enforcement can't or won't enforce these laws. I'm not sure if the laws are poorly written or it's a tourism thing. But if you read the laws, there shouldn't be such a noise problem.

VarneyPoint · 12-12-2005, 05:14 PM

I told myself I would stay out of this debate, but alas. Just so everyone is clear, I am against the speed limit. It will not make the lake safer. That being said,

Woodsy, I can't really fathom having 2,3,or4 different colored stickers on my boat. Not only that, but I already pay enough money to register my boat, why should I have to pay more so that the MP knows I am certified? There isn't a separate sticker on my car telling the world I am a licensed auto driver. Thirdly, I hope you were kidding when you included canoes and kayaks in your post. When was the last time a kayak crashed into another boat causing serious damage and/or harm, traveled faster than headway speed, violated the right of way rule, etc? I will admit that occasionally you may see a kayak in the middle of the broads and while hard to see perhaps and not exactly exercising a lot of common sense, how will a sticker on a kayak make the lake safer? You're simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to the system. I think in another thread you proposed this idea and I think I responded to you then, sorry for being redundant.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=2294

I like the idea of a weekend NWZ. The most obvious place that comes to mind would be between Eagle and Governor's.

Hottrucks · 12-12-2005, 06:13 PM

I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems.

Varney Point as far as stickers go I would proudly show my sticker right next to my Safety Sticker, yea every year I have my boat inspected (at my request by MP) and they give me a sticker and I put it on my windscreen for all to see. Maybe this sticker can be used for dual purpose???? How many of your cars have parking or dump stickers on them??? Don't they know you live or work there?? kinda the same thing I would think.

Lake George does something like this I think?? Don't you pay for water use there???or is it just a large launch fee??

As far as stickers on row boat types why not they do use the water and the $$ would help MP AND LAKE ISSUES ONLY. Maybe they could get those little red flags like on OHRVs too?? Then we could see them better?? It seems we all pay to use the lake some have more advantages than other and there for they pay more. (Home on the lake pays big tax$$ = alot of advantages, person wanting a day at the beach pays to park and use the beach, small $$ it's kinda a sliding scale on your lake use I guess)

Here one for the ha ha pile maybe we could charge by the pound for boats?? This way a row boats pays pennies while the big cruzers and GFBLs pay dollars ?? Since it's these boats everyone has issues with and seem to cause the must disruption on the lake??

How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags?? I know, I know, but they can find new ways to create reviniue just like before they where made so common??

Larger NWZs yes yes yes on weekends!!

As far as day trippers unless they hold a card from somewhere saying they have been tought the basic rules of the road then they get the test and sticker more $$ for MP with a card yea they have to buy a sticker??

With a Better funded MP the lakes will be safer for everyone and I don't think anyone can contest that!!

Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

Woodsy · 12-12-2005, 08:45 PM

Varney...

I decided to bring it up again for discussion, now that Don has opened up the HB-162 forum. Your point is correct that you don't need to show a license to register your car... however, if your license is suspended, you cannot re-register your car. I do agree with you on the fact that I really don't want to put a sticker on my boat.

However...

The situation is such that I think it might be a good idea... If you go to ANY launch ramp on the lake, be it private or public, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that a Safe Boater Certificate is required to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! There is a small plaque on the public ramps mentioning the 150' safe passage law... but thats it! So lots of people, daytrippers, weekenders, fisherman or anyone else who put thier boats in once in awhile don't have any idea that a certificate is required.

My points are:

1. Gives everyone, including MP a quick visual check to see if the boat in question is in fact owned (not necessarily driven) by a person who took a safe boating course and passed. It also identifies those who would be daytrippers or boat renters and insures they have at least been given the 20 question checklist and that the checklist is good for 14 days... after that a SBC will be required.

2. It adds revenue to the coffers of the MP to provide funding for more officers, better training and equipment.

Woodsy

jrc · 12-12-2005, 10:25 PM

just don't issue registrations unless the owner/operator is certified or exempt from certification. Unfortunately, I don't think that idea will be adopted, the DMV can't even seem to keep people with suspended licenses from registering their cars.

VP: There are pretty reliable rumors to there being a full time NWZ between Govenors and Eagle Island starting in spring 06.

FLL: There's been talk that the commitee expanded the speed limit to all large lakes and tied violations to automobile driving records. But, I haven't found an online version of the modified bill yet.

SIKSUKR · 12-13-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems.

How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags??

Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

You may not be picking on anyone but my only boat is one of those"sea doo types".I am pretty much only on the lake on weekends.So the heck with me right?If you have a boat,how about we do away with your type of boat?No,the answer is not to ban any types of boats.The problem is with the operaters that are violating existing laws.Do away with them and 99% of the issues people have with boating on Winni will go away.I wish people could use some comman sense.

Woodsy · 12-13-2005, 10:50 AM

I am open to any other ideas to insure compliance with the SBC (Safe Boater Certificate) law. I think the law as it is currently written has no teeth at all. There are no signs of any sort telling daytrippers or weekenders that a SBC is required, they can plead ignorance and actually have a valid excuse. If there is no way to insure compliance with the law and enforce the law, then the prevailing attitude will be "why bother?".

The same goes for HB-162 as it is now written. Although they did take the step of linking boating offenses to your drivers license, there is still no funding package attached to the bill. Radar guns will cost money, Training the officers will cost money, the courts will cost money. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Woodsy

Bear Lover · 12-13-2005, 03:58 PM

It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

Hottrucks · 12-13-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

You may not be picking on anyone but my only boat is one of those"sea doo types".I am pretty much only on the lake on weekends.So the heck with me right?If you have a boat,how about we do away with your type of boat?No,the answer is not to ban any types of boats.The problem is with the operaters that are violating existing laws.Do away with them and 99% of the issues people have with boating on Winni will go away.I wish people could use some comman sense.

Hold on a second!!! all I was saying is that there are other lakes that do not allow sea doos on weekend already!!! I live on one.. It's not any type of boat it's the people operating them!!!

Mee-n-Mac · 12-13-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

{snip}
Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

I think "codeman" started an "compromise" thread (which I can't quite find time to collect my thougts into) which might be a good place to post more ideas. FWIW "JohnNH" had a similar thread a while ago, I'll post a link to it when I find it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1454

Mee-n-Mac · 12-13-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I have been thinking about this for awhile now. Is speed really the issue or is it ignorance/lack or courtesy?

{snip}

4. Study the areas of the Lake with the most congestion, and look at ways to control the boat traffic. Initially try NWZ's, but if the congestion persists, perhaps weekend only "safety zones" where a reduced speed is mandated.

{snip}

Woodsy

Just to comment on this 1 part of your post. I've guess I've said it enough times but there are places where "high" speed is OK and places where it isn't. Seems to me it wouldn't be hard to figure which is which and then make some practical decisions such that the lake isn't a quiltwork of speed zones. That way those who can't seem to play together can go to their "separate rooms"

BTW weekend only speed limits was mentioned in an old post. Lastly I recall an article (Citizen, Fosters ?) where somebody who thought something should be done (!).... and suggested lighted/flashing/?? buoys to be placed in the bays and activated (to indicate speed limit) by the MP when they thought it was necessary. Not sure the last one was practical but it was creative (which I favor over practical at this moment). Just thought you might find these similar ideas interesting ...

chase1 · 12-14-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes were. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.[/QUOTE]

Bear,

Are you happy with with a 1% pay raise when the cost of living increases by 4%.

I think that supporters are driven by emotion or perhaps misrepresenting their motives. The same budget will make more improvements if it were allocated to an identifiable problem. USCG Accident Statistics show education to be the best area of focus. This is a state program and any potential benefits associated with HB162 would only be seen by a minor group of Winnipesaukee residents who seem to be afraid of the increased boating population which lags far behind local community and business growth. There are currently fewer registered boats in NH and nationwide than in 1980. Growth and congestion on the lake can only be due to an increase in tourism which supporters claim is being lost. This contradiction backed by statistics proves that perception is not reality. As a taxpayer everyone should want to see state funds allocated to make statewide improvements (greater than 1%), and oppose funding of porgrams that benefit small group agendas.

Chase1

Seaplane Pilot · 12-14-2005, 08:49 AM

There was some woman on WGIR AM this morning talking in support of the boat speed limit. In my opinion the overall arguments in support of the speed limit are totally groundless, but this women was really weak. She was stating that the NH has speed limit laws on their "back country" snowmobile trails, where there sometimes is no traffic, which provides a substantial reason why there should be a boat speed limit on Winnipesaukee in all areas, 24/7. Huh??

I've been swamped and endangered in my small skiff by cabin cruisers plowing through the water, throwing giant waves. These are the real problem makers and I, for one, will start a personal crusade to target the cabin cruisers that make huge, dangerous waves if the speed limit crowd succeeds. Never have I felt endangered or threatened by any boat going 45+ mph.

SIKSUKR · 12-14-2005, 11:28 AM

I heard the same show this morning Seaplane pilot.She was on the Charlie Sherman show.Her stance was the same weak position when questioned by the female co-host about why we need this bill when she agreed there have been no speed related incidents."The public is afraid to boat on winni because of the high speeds" she says.She refered to the tourism being affected.This really flies in the face of there argument when we all know the lake has gotten more crowded on weekends.Doesn't seem like the tourists are staying away at all.I'd be surprized if any tourists even know about this bill and that they are being used as amunition.Look.there is no question in conjested areas speed should be reduced.In 99% of my observations,in my little 10ft boat by the way,fast boats slow down when the situation warrants..In the same observations,the ones that don't are not the gofast boats.It's the ones that can't go more than 40-45 mph that don't recognize when one should slow up or worse yet,keep 150ft away when travelling above headway speed.The hb 162 supporters know this is the case if they spend any time on Winni.I know there are exceptions to this,but there it's not even close as to who the captain boneheads are out there.I've had 4 or 5 encounters the last five years and none have been"gofast" boats.Let's speak from actual experience than from what I see is a fear campaign to insite the uneducated.OK,I'll take a breath now!!Breath...just breath SIKSUKR!!

Bear Lover · 12-14-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Are you happy with with a 1% pay raise when the cost of living increases by 4%.

I think that supporters are driven by emotion or perhaps misrepresenting their motives. The same budget will make more improvements if it were allocated to an identifiable problem. USCG Accident Statistics show education to be the best area of focus. This is a state program and any potential benefits associated with HB162 would only be seen by a minor group of Winnipesaukee residents who seem to be afraid of the increased boating population which lags far behind local community and business growth. There are currently fewer registered boats in NH and nationwide than in 1980. Growth and congestion on the lake can only be due to an increase in tourism which supporters claim is being lost. This contradiction backed by statistics proves that perception is not reality. As a taxpayer everyone should want to see state funds allocated to make statewide improvements (greater than 1%), and oppose funding of porgrams that benefit small group agendas.

Chase1

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Woodsy · 12-14-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Bear Lover...

You bring up the Littlefield/Hartman accident. It was a tragic accident and most certainly does "count". Nobody, regardless of thier stance on HB-162 has forgotten about or tried to dismiss this tragedy. I take great offense to that accusation.

It's is your opinion is that accident is the real reason for the existence of HB-162. Please explain how exactly a speed limit would have changed the events of that night?

How also can you say HB-162 doesn't require any funding? Even if the radar guns are donated, the MP officers have to be trained in thier use. That training costs money. The radar units will have to be calibrated at least once a year, that costs money. When people choose to fight thier ticket in court, that costs money. There is a cost to HB-162, regardless if the guns are initially donated!

Woodsy

Skip · 12-14-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

...It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented...The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type...

However, what about these other quotes from Bear Lover????

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearlover

...The "real truth" is that we don't want you to slow down. We want you to take your boats to a body of water that is appropriate for them... when this speed limit passes that is exactly what you will be doing...

or

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearlover

...When the bill passes there will be lots of long slips available on Winni...

or

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearlover

...I don't need to prove speed is dangerous. And why I want you off the lake doesn't matter...Before long the only place you will be able to go fast is "Offshore"...

or

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearlover

...What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit...And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake...

Gee Bearlover, how can anyone be misrepresenting your position on this important matter???

Merry Christmas (but hey, thanks for the chuckle ).....

Skip!

Cal · 12-14-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

My sympathies go out to your neighbor as they did in 2002. But you didn't again , state "THE FACTS" that theESTIMATEDspeed was 28 mph

. Now was that "fact" or "estimate"? If it was and estimate , it could be 30 but then again it could be 25. I'm confused as to how you can state an estimated speed as fact. The only Fact is that it is an ESTIMATE. We both know there were other , more pertinent reasons for this tradegy , that the speed limit people WANT everybody to forget and concentrate on speed with a tunnel vision type view. If I was going to be hit by 8000 lbs and given a choice of 25 or 28 mph I seriously doubt it would make much difference

But this falls under the education catagory , which unless something is done about that , I don't feel things will change much , particularly on the crowded weekends. That's my primary reason for timing my visits to weekdays. I just have to figure out how to stay for two weeks at a time without a weekend in the middle

Skip · 12-14-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

... state "THE FACTS" that theESTIMATEDspeed was 28 mph:confused

Cal, you're beating your head against a stonewall on this one.

This is a direct quote from Sandy Helve, described as the leading proponent at WinnFabs as reported in the Citizen article on Monday:

[Sandy] Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.

"We are looking for the flagrant violators," said Helve.

The Littlefiled boat was estimated to be doing two or three miles over the proposed speed limit the night of the crime. If the MPs were in the area that night, following the wishes and intents of the lead proponent of HB162 and her organization, than Littlefield's speed would have been of no concern to them as they would have been on the lookout for flagrant violators (which is what they should be doing).

There are many valid arguments that the proponents of a speed limit can and have made over the past year. The few that continue to represent that HB162 would have prevented the crime that evening not only defy logic, but defy the claims of the same organization that is leading the charge to put limits on the Lake!

I think it is tragic that some misuse the senseless death that occurred that night by misrepresenting proposed legislation and not questioning why ample present legislation was not enough to keep Littlefield from behind the throttles that evening!

Skip

chase1 · 12-14-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Bear,

I am sorry for your loss. I do not mean to disrespect the situation but the accident you refer to would not have been prevented by HB162. Other laws more serious than speeding were broken that night and the estimated speed of 28mph is within a reasonable margin of error to the proposed limit of 25mph.
I am a no speed limit person and I am in no way trying to "forget" this accident but it just does not support HB162. If the state set laws based on personal feelings derived from each individual fatal accident we would not be able to canoe, sail, swim, ride a bike, snow ski, boat in rough conditions, water ski.........

Where can I find information regarding the radar equipment you claim was donated? Is this equipment adequate for the environment???? Is there enough to cover the entire state???? It seems unlikely that anyone would make an investment and donate costly equipment that may never be needed. This bill still has a long way to go. Perhaps they could have donated cash and funded more MP payroll so current regualtions could be enforced better.....

Chase1

ITD · 12-14-2005, 06:04 PM

Skip,

Very, very interesting,
Thank you.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-14-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

{snip}We both know there were other , more pertinent reasons for this tradegy , that the speed limit people WANT everybody to forget and concentrate on speed with a tunnel vision type view. If I was going to be hit by 8000 lbs and given a choice of 25 or 28 mph I seriously doubt it would make much difference

Aside from all the other reasons pointed out in this thread, it's important to remember that the speed difference between the 2 boats that night was less than Littlefield's actual speed. He hit the Hartman boat from behind as it slowly travelled up the bay. If somebody is worried about a boat hitting another and wants to claim that 28 or 30 or 35 made all the difference (vs 25) then how do they feel about 2 boats headed towards each other at the proposed limit. The difference in speed is now a legal 50 mph. How is this OK and 28 not ?

Bear Lover · 12-14-2005, 07:09 PM

Skip

As an intelligent man I'm sure you can tell the difference between what "I" want, what "most speed limit supporters" want and what are predictions for the future.

However I have changed my opinion since I wrote some of that many months ago. This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate. I do still want them to slow down.

And Sandy does not speak for me.

Plus, in fairness, you should have indicated the age of some of those quotes. And some are taken out of the context, read the posts before mine.

Cal · 12-14-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

Cal, you're beating your head against a stonewall on this one.

[Sandy] Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.

"We are looking for the flagrant violators," said Helve.

The Littlefiled boat was estimated to be doing two or three miles over the proposed speed limit the night of the crime. If the MPs were in the area that night, following the wishes and intents of the lead proponent of HB162 and her organization, than Littlefield's speed would have been of no concern to them as they would have been on the lookout for flagrant violators (which is what they should be doing).

Skip

I have NO problem with that. As a matter of fact , I have no problem with the night time speed limit. There are times I've been out on a moonless night and haven't gone above idle speed. One of the last times I was up there , we returned from Weirs , through the channel and past Naswa and Channel Marine and beyond that it looked like the end of the earth...totally BLACK. I was going to take a ride down Paugus Bay a ways but thought better of it and headed back to Naswa where we normally stay.
I'm personally a proponent of education and making "hit and run " penalties the same or worse than BUI. Most boaters who drink don't get caught. Most drunk boaters don't get caught. Usually the only ones that get caught have aready caused a serious mishap and that's too late

.
I just wonder what the cry would be if Littlefield had been piloting a cruiser instead of a go fast.
Maybe it's just me but I always keep a watch behind myself even before this event and even more so after.
Decades ago , when I got my drivers license , my father told me "Boy , you have to have eyes you a$$ when you drive". That's still true today and on the water too , and guess what? Speed limits won't change that on crowded weekends. It's common sense and education.

Skip · 12-14-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

...Most boaters who drink don't get caught. Most drunk boaters don't get caught. Usually the only ones that get caught have aready caused a serious mishap and that's too late

...

Cal,

Sadly you don't even know how true that statement is. Anyone call pick out a falling down drunk, but many people who are at or just over the limit don't show the stereotypical drunk antics portrayed on TV. While their judgement and ability to operate machinery is severely compromised, there may be little smell of an alcoholic beverage on their breath, no staggering, no slurred speech and very little other outward sign of their intoxicated state.

I will have to do a little digging, but I did posess a statistical report at one time (obtained at one of my certification classes) that stated during a certain study, law enforcement officials identified only one in seven legally intoxicated individuals during routine traffic stops.

This was not due to incompetence on the officers part, but caused by the limited amount of time a reasonable stop can occur coupled with the limited outward effects many people show at and just above legal intoxication levels.

It also explains why on many occasions witnesses will watch someone leaving a bar or party and later state that the individual appeared fine to them, only to have that individual involved in an alcohol related horrific incident. Many times over the counter and illicit drugs only amplify the effect, whether used in conjunction with alcohol or not.

I have too many first hand horror stories relating experiences with my previous comments. All I can say is it is no means as easy to pick out a legally intoxicated individual as some would have you believe. We all tend to relate to that person who becomes a falling down fool after a few drinks, tending to overlook the problem drinker or drug user that can consume copious amounts of alcohol or drugs, and initially even fool well trained observers.

Anyway, back to your quoted statement.....it is true enough to warrant the get tough attitude that has prevailed in the last decade, a momentum to remove inebriated individuals from our roads, trails and waterways (and airways) despite the constant roadblocks law enforcement must negotiate to ensure that a free society truly remains free from excessive government intrusion.

Trust me, it ain't easy....especially during the Holiday season!

Merry Christmas, be safe.....

Skip

Seaplane Pilot · 12-16-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Without a doubt, that was a tragic, unfortunate accident. However, from my recollection I thought the driver of the Baja was only going somewhere around 25mph. Given the circumstances, this fatality would most likely have occured even if the Baja was going 15-20 mph. Your reference to this accident lends credence to the idea that the proponants of HB162 are really just targeting the cigarette boats, such as the Baja involved in this accident.

Bear Lover · 12-19-2005, 09:25 PM

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. Then I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

fatlazyless · 12-19-2005, 09:52 PM

For the last 80 years, Lake Winnipesaukee has been the place to go boating in a fast boat. If you had a fast boat on one of NH's many smaller lakes, someone would say; your danged speed boat is too fast for this little lake, you should take it to Winnipesaukee. And the fast boats all came to Winnipesaukee, and there was not too much problem because it's so big a lake. So, all the go-fasts have been here for a long time. They have here a history and a heritage.

So, what's really needed to help accomplish compliance with a newly created 45day-25night speed limit is linking a boat speeding violation to your automobile driver's license. Give it some big nasty teeth! ......ouchey, ouch, ouch! A single auto speeding violation for going more than 10mph over the limit takes three years of no-violation driving to erase, and eliminates your good driver discount which could be $500./year for three years. Maybe the NH automobile insurance company lobbyists could influence the State legislature on this. (frown face!)

winnilaker · 12-19-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, what's really needed to help accomplish compliance with a newly created 45day-25night speed limit is linking a boat speeding violation to your automobile driver's license. Give it some big nasty teeth! ......ouchey, ouch, ouch! A single auto speeding violation for going more than 10mph over the limit takes three years of no-violation driving to erase, and eliminates your good driver discount which could be $500./year for three years.

Something that impacts a person's driving record should have the evidence behind it. How will Marine Patrol prove the violating speed?

Cal · 12-19-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. The I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

Directions to other lakes???????? I saw a few suggestions like Champlain and Sabago but the guy from Lake George said their 45 mph limit hasn't changed anything and nobody posted a rte # or compass direction. Did I miss something???? Or was it just wishful thinking

Island Lover · 12-20-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. The I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

BroadHopper · 12-20-2005, 07:23 AM

The insurance companies are going to see big bucks on this bill. Of course they are going to stand behind this. It'll be a sad day if NH ever become a no fault state like Mass.
After reading the last Citizen article, I am under the impression the hospitality industry and some of the marinas are sending out a signal to the tourists that the lake is safe if the bill is passed. I wish they will say that this is less than 1% of the problem on the lake. I'm tired of the 'feel good' rhetorics of the proponents.
I commend Skip for speaking on behalf of bothe sides and to bring into perspective the law enforcement side as well. I wish him a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.

codeman671 · 12-20-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

There was a few that were bashing and yes, they are welcome to leave. Overall the opponents of the speed limit are good people that think as I do that there are alternative motives behind this and that the entire bill is an attempted bandaid but will not truly heal the real problems.

One of the posters in that forum mentioned posted the following:
"i heard a story from a marina the no longer offered rentals - customer came back (towed) and the lower unit was destroyed, guy jumps out and screams at the top of his lungs "THERE WASN'T A DOTTED LINE!"

At the time of the rental they gave a guy a chart and it had a dotted line of areas to avoid - yup, he actually thought the dotted line would be on the water."

I think that spells out the true problem!

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

Don't forget, not all performance boaters are like that, please remember a great comment by Bear Lover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

However I have changed my opinion since I wrote some of that many months ago. This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate.

Dave R · 12-20-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

It's precisely these sorts of emotions (all emotions actually...) that our law makers need to suppress or ignore when wieghing this decision. The need for this law should be based soley on fact, not how offensive one group of people finds another group of people.

The real problem is the lack of politeness and respect from a few folks in fast boats and a general lack of tolerance from another group of folks who probably don't own fast boats. Try as we might, we can't legislate politeness, respect or tolerance. Best we can do is be a good example of politeness, respect and tolerance and hope others try to emulate us. This law will not do that, nor will it improve anything on the lake.

I will be completely unaffected by a speed limit law and perhaps should not really care. I only hope my elected officials do what is right, even if it's not popular.

Woodsy · 12-20-2005, 10:39 AM

I don't agree with bashing of any kind. People have have a right to form thier opinions, but bashing certainly isn't acceptable behavior.

That being said, when you attempt to take away an individual's personal freedoms, the response tends to be be less than agreeable, and sometimes downright nasty. This is especially true when there is a serious question as to what the real intent of the law is.

In the case of HB-162, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Pilliod, has stated that HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety. If HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety, then what is it really about? He has stated it is about fear. What exactly are people afraid of? The accident statistics for Lake Winnipesaukee don't support a need for a speed limit, in fact we had fewer accidents last year than the year before.

So what is the real issue then? After reviewing the statements of Rep. Pilliod and others, one can reasonably conclude that the real reason behind HB-162 is that some people just don't like high performance boats. Dislike is not a basis for legislation that severely restricts or limits an individuals personal freedom.

Woodsy

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 11:34 AM

#1
In the recent article from the citizen I believe this was stated:

"Also supporting the bill are numerous conservation groups, such as the Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the New Hampshire Lakes Association."

Not sure if anyone got the recent New Hampshire Lakes Association mailer looking for more donations to help fight their causes. Guess what bullet #4 was, representing usage of our lakes that they want to protect?

"* A young man speeds by in his new motorboat (a lifelong dream come true), reliving his memories of his first water skiiing lesson with his dad."

For once I agree with NHLA, I look forward to the day when my children get to experience the excitement of this beautiful lake speeding in a new motorboat. However I find it ironic that they support the speed limit and they are the ones that wanted it on all NH lakes, waterways.

#2
It's been stated that this law would have prevented that unfortunate accident, at 28 mph, that's only 3 mph above the proposed speed limit. However, that same Citizen article:
"Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.
"

So what is it then to prevent accidents or not???

#3
It's been stated that the bill IS NOT aimed at performance boats. However this response from the bill's sponsor says it quite differently:

"Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. "

If you read that carefully, notice it says the vessels have lack of courtesy, not the people. So if that's not obvious enough, that the boats are the problems, why not come out and be honest with everyone about it!!!

I'll stop with three for now.

Bear Lover · 12-20-2005, 12:15 PM

winnilaker

None of these arguments hold water, in my opinion.

1. The young man speeding by in his motorboat could be going 35 or 45. And I doubt if dad was going over 45 during his first waterskiing lesson.

I hope you children do get the experience, and that they keep it at 45 or less.

2. The Littlefield boat was going over the proposed speed limit. I don't care even one little bit about the arguments and quibbles about this. 28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

Sandy's opinion of what the law was intended to do doesn't matter. 68% of NH voters support a speed limit, THAT MATTERS!

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

BroadHopper · 12-20-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

to winnilaker

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

Then why don't you PROMOTE safety??? If that is the problem.
Creating more laws do not PROMOTE safety. It creates more confusion and work for the MP.

Cal · 12-20-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

winnilaker
28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

ESTIMATED 28 might be more than 25. Then again maybe not.
Get the "facts"straight! please

Boater · 12-20-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

one can reasonably conclude that the real reason behind HB-162 is that some people just don't like high performance boats.

Geez Woodsy, I'm really surprised that after all the debate here, you still try to spin this into a discrimination issue. It's obvious to me that for most supporters this is a safety issue. You've read that many (most?) marinas and hotels support HB162 because so many of their customers feel threatened and have told them so. These are real people with real concerns. I personally have had some frightening encounters with boats at high speeds that all of your spin can't erase.

I just got through reading the thread on the other forum that someone referenced. What a surprise that the same names that try to dominate the discussion here appear there too. Also interesting is that there is not a single opposing point of view there. Who would dare? Apparently they have a private area (the bilge?) where they can get really nasty and insulting. To bad the legislature can't read that. I think most supporters of HB162 don't get involved in this nonsense, they just contact their legislator.

I guess the real question for the legislature is whether they should side with the vocal minority who use intimidation and insults as tactics and who think unlimited speed is a "personal freedom" or the thousands of other boaters who see their safety and enjoyment of the lake jeopardized and want some reasonable limits.

One more question, why is it that Porche and Ferrari owners aren't crying about "personal freedoms" when their 150mph vehicles are limited to 65?

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

I fear driving my motorcycle in Boston, its unsafe. Your approach would be to eliminate trucks and cabs, correct? Don't I have the right to feel safe driving in Boston on my motorcycle. Or would most people just say "you're crazy, go use your motorcycle in the country where there is less traffic"

With all the accidents on our highways, WHY don't we just lower everything to 45, that sure would make my grandmother feel safer driving on the highways. Her words "crazy people out there driving fast"

If you want to compare boating with driving, let's look at the demographics of the ages with the most accidents (the young and the elderly). Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury-related death for people ages 65-74 and second only to falls for those 75-84, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.You want to make the lake safer let's target them, there are statistics that prove this. However, I bet that would not go over well with the Bear Island crew. I was at the first hearing, needless to say there was a generation gap, pro HB162 and oppose HB162.

I, however, would oppose targeting them, it's discriminatory. If you want really want to make the lake safer, why not point out the problems, exactly? I happen to know a bunch of responsible boaters who would gladly help find resolution to the few bad apples. Shouldn't be hard to find them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boater

Geez Woodsy, I'm really surprised that after all the debate here, you still try to spin this into a discrimination issue.

See my previous post of the response of the bill's sponsor, how do you interpret that?? Is it ONLY the ocean going vessels that lack courtesy? Any statistics to prove that??

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 01:30 PM

Frank,
We finally do agree on something! Everyone, it really does work, this was my favorite response from a rep after we informed him of the facts.

"If there should be a floor fight on this warm, touchy and fuzzy feel good legislation, I'd be happy to speak on the NH House floor and say how I was in support of HB162 and why I'm not now.

I not only see HB162 as unnecessary legislation. I see it as making the job of Marine patrol enforcement much more difficult to do."

Hottrucks · 12-20-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

winnilaker

None of these arguments hold water, in my opinion.

1. The young man speeding by in his motorboat could be going 35 or 45. And I doubt if dad was going over 45 during his first water skiing lesson.

I hope you children do get the experience, and that they keep it at 45 or less.

2. The Littlefield boat was going over the proposed speed limit. I don't care even one little bit about the arguments and quibbles about this. 28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

Sandy's opinion of what the law was intended to do doesn't matter. 68% of NH voters support a speed limit, THAT MATTERS!

1) Speeding is relevant to the equipment and qualification of the operator

2) If Joe officer was sitting at the end of your road with radar you would have a driving record that read like a calendar day after day all at 3 or more over the posted speed limit.

Sandy's opinion is as good as anyones because like the rest of us it's the opinions that matter. As far as 68% of the voters Big questions to be answered
1) are these people Boaters??
2) do they live on lakes??
3) where do they live?? only the voices of the Winnie area where heard? and it now cover all the lake in the state? I think all should be heard!!

I would just like to see educated voters thats all. I think that some of the Reps up north no nothing about this or probably care not too, just don't cut one of their trees or close another Mill.

hey Boater which website I would like to read what else I'm missing??

Woodsy · 12-20-2005, 02:35 PM

Boater...

1. If safety is the primary concern and the reason behind HB-162, why did Rep. Pilliod say it wasn't?

2. Where is the accident data to support your belief that Lake Winnipesaukee isn't safe? Specifically, where is the accident data that points to excessive speed (over 45mph) as a major factor in boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee?

3. As far as marinas and hotels that support the issue, how many of them are in the boat rental business? How many of them are like Rusty McClear and think its perfectly ok to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to someone who has no prior experience boating? All the renter has to do is a 20 question checklist? As long as they can afford the $200/hr its perfectly acceptable? Can you imagine if we rented cars & motorcycles with nothing but a 20 question checklist? But for some reason this is acceptable with a boat?

4. Tell me why is it the marina/hotel rental customers feel threatened? Because of speeding boats? Not likely, especially as speed is extremely difficult to judge on the water, as is distance. Perhaps it is as Rusty McClear said in his story, the rental customer was upset because nobody told them that the lake is busy, especially on summer weekends. But its not Rusty's responsibility to tell his rental customers...

Woodsy

Fat Jack · 12-20-2005, 02:36 PM

Winnilaker,
You seem to have a Frank on your mind a lot these days. What's up with that?
Jack

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 02:45 PM

Jack or Frank or whomever,
I'm just having an interesting debate. Charlie St Clair from "In Focus", that public access TV show, wanted to have both sides on his show for a debate, but WinnFabs didn't want to do it, they taped WinnFabs portion and then ours and taped it together to look like one show. I would have liked to have you or Frank or anybody into a real good formal debate available for everyone to see. Regardless of who wins the debate, it would allow NH citizens to put faces with the information being presented here anonymously.

Fat Jack · 12-20-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

from a rep ...."I'd be happy to speak on the NH House floor and say how I was in support of HB162 and why I'm not now. "

Todd,
I look forward to his speech. Let's hear from all sides, all reps, all citizens, and see how the legislature decides. Knowing NH politics, I'm sure there will be some legislators who will stray from the wishes of their constituents to the opposition. After all, there is a lot of campaign money (and?) at stake here. And you might even be able to sway a majority...this time. But the tide has turned...for good. Now it is just a matter of time before no-rules boating is a memory in NH.

As to the notion that any rep was once "in support" and has now changed sides (for non-political reasons), I'll believe that when I see it. I notice that you don't post his name. Is he a member of the secret society?

Fat Jack · 12-20-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

WinnFabs didn't want to do it.

Ricky or Fred or whomever,
Do you really wonder why? How many times have you told us of your own run-ins with the police? Are we suppose to believe this is not an attempt to intimidate? How many threatening and abusive emails and posts have there been from your side once you found out a supporter's identity? Why else would you need to know anyone's identity? Why do you need to face the supporters down in some kind of intimidating man-to-man confrontation? What place does all that have in this debate? Would the facts be different? Why else would you need to sit across from Sandy or Rusty accept to intimidate? And why do you feel the need to identify everyone who opposes you? I notice that none of your members use their full legal names as their screen names either. But notice that no one on this side is asking to know your real identities. What would we gain from that? I'm sure you would all provide that willingly, but that is just because you have nothing to fear from us.
Anonymity allows people to voice their opinion without fear of reprisal. That is why we have secret ballots in November. Saddam did not have secret ballots.

winnilaker · 12-20-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I notice that you don't post his name. Is he a member of the secret society?

Secret society? This response was from a WinnFabs officer earlier this year, now explain to me who is the secret society.

"Winnfabs SOLE purpose is to "educate" as many people as it takes to get HB162 passed. And they can be and are very selective about who they allow to join and what info they share. While people like Fat Jack and ApS can easily infiltrate NHRBA, guys like Custie cannot stroll right in to join Winnfabs. they are cross-referencing user names, email addresses, personal profiles, phone numbers, etc and just feeding back garbage to any pretenders."

So I guess I'm surprised if you don't know who the rep is!!

We have so much more information to provide on this matter, why did you start a new thread to stop talking and start writing. I agree with the writing part, but why stop talking? If representatives are reading this, I think it can be very informative.

Cal · 12-20-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

.
Anonymity allows people to voice their opinion without fear of reprisal.

Just like terorists

Careful what you wish for

Bear Lover · 12-20-2005, 05:21 PM

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

Fat Jack · 12-20-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

That thread says a mouthful. Now watch it disappear.

Fat Jack · 12-20-2005, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

now explain to me who is the secret society.

I can't speak for Winnfabs. Nor would I wish to. And keep in mind that Winnfabs is just a drop of water in the flood of support for HB162. But I am confused about your point. Are you saying that Winnfabs is a "secret society" because they state publicly and emphatically what their well-defined and specific goal is, and deny membership to those who differ? How's that a "secret society"? Just sounds more like an exclusive ad hoc organization to me.
On the other hand, NHRBA/Winnilakers professes itself to be an "all inclusive" and "democratic" organization formed to represent the rights of "all boaters", but does not even allow most of its own members full access to its website. What's that all about? Do you count those members in when you quote your membership size? Since they can't even make their opinions known to the organization, how do you know they are not on our side? For all you know, many of them might have been fooled by the sailboat photos on the home page into thinking it was a sailing organization, but now have no way to view your own forums to find out what the group is really about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

So I guess I'm surprised if you don't know who the rep is!!

How could I know when you will not tell me? Sounds made-up to me. Doesn't seem like something you'd need to hide if it was true.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-20-2005, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

I thought the ostensible reason HB-162 was being proposed was because the speeds on the lake were too high and it was unsafe or perceived as being unsafe for the average boater. Supporters are worried about being run over. Then I read the above thread and the 50 referenced posts and the "accidents" they mention. Of those I find 7 mentioning boat-boat collisions and the remainder* are single boat incidents. Of the 7 I find the following:

#7: The operator of the GBFL runs over another boat while drunk. He ends up in jail and one of the victims says; "Colann " is a bad example that makes every boater look bad, but he is not your typical boater," said Maher, who had the flesh from his right hand ripped off during the wreck. "Boating on the Ohio River is like a fraternity. Most boaters behave responsibly."
So we have 1 drunk plus speed "accident".

#8: PWC swerves in front of a 32' Envision that was leaving the marina. Envision goes into reverse but still over-runs the PWC. No speeds are given. No BUI mentioned. So do we blame speed or the PWC or ?? The reversing indicates low speed to me.

#17: A 21' boat hits an 18' boat killing father and son in New Orleans. The collision happened in the Grand Bayou area, near the old Happy Jack's Marina north of Venice, said Maj. John Marie of the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office. Authorities had no further information about the kinds of boats involved in the collision, which happened in an open area of the bayou. One boat swerved to avoid the other, "and they still collided," Marie said. Speeds not mentioned but if I believe FLL (most small boats limited to <45) I don't think either boat's speed was above HB-162 legal limits. Very unlikely to be a case for "excess" (>HB-162) speed.

#30: This is the case ApS/madrasahs mentioned before. Grier Dean Rush runs over another boat killing 3 and then leaves the boat and escapes on foot. A few days later he turns himself in. A speed of 55 mph was mentioned. No BUI citation but sounds like "a Ted" to me. So we have 1 over the HB-162 limit (? w/o alcohol involvement ?).

#42: A "leisure boat" runs into a pontoon boat killing 1 and injuring 3 and then takes off. He's later caught and arrested for BUI. No speeds mentioned. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case.

#46: An LAPD officier takes his 20' boat and hits a PWC from the rear, injuring 1 of 2 riders. He and his buddy onboard are both later arrested for BUI/DUI. No speeds mentioned. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case, again.

#49: A 31' Cigarrette and a 30' Searay collide nearly head on. No speeds mentioned. 1 operator cited for BUI. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case, again.

So what does the aforemention list of 50, collected from 4 years of posts on OSO, from all across the country, say about "our" safety and HB-162 ? Seems to me I have more to fear from the drunk boater than the fast boater. Now if I were worried about people hurting themselves in fast boats (the remainder of the posts) I might use this list to push a speed limit bill but frankly I am against laws designed to protect people from themselves.

* They were 3 posts I couldn't read, certainly 1 (and maybe all 3) was about the Smoke on the Water accident (single boat, no collision). Another post was about a guy who ran his performance boat into a barge and disappeared in an effort to fake his death and escape from the various illicit frauds and schemes.

Cal · 12-20-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

Good find Bear Lover. Lots of useful information over quite some time.
Of course you will forward all the other NON speed related fatalities also (such as BUI), so the politicos can see how small a percentage it truly is. I'm sure you wouldn't weight the facts in your favor by not telling ALL the facts.
They probably want it hidden so the facts won't be used in the wrong manner.
Quite an interesting site BTW

Bear Lover · 12-20-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Good find Bear Lover. Lots of useful information over quite some time.
Of course you will forward all the other NON speed related fatalities also (such as BUI), so the politicos can see how small a percentage it truly is. I'm sure you wouldn't weight the facts in your favor by not telling ALL the facts.
They probably want it hidden so the facts won't be used in the wrong manner.
Quite an interesting site BTW

I guess you guys miss the point. The accident information is interesting but more importantly.....

1. The same people that are arguing here that safety is not an issue, are asking for the thread to be deleted or hidden. They don't want the truth about accidents to be known. If the truth is on your side...why hide the data!!!!!!!

2. Since I posted the link to that thread, 7 posts have been deleted from it. There were 32 posts when I gave the link, now there are 25. Once again they hide the truth. They are deleting their posts to cover up the cover up. Reminds me of Watergate.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-21-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I guess you guys miss the point. The accident information is interesting but more importantly.....

1. The same people that are arguing here that safety is not an issue, are asking for the thread to be deleted or hidden. They don't want the truth about accidents to be known. If the truth is on your side...why hide the data!!!!!!!

2. Since I posted the link to that thread, 7 posts have been deleted from it. There were 32 posts when I gave the link, now there are 25. Once again they hide the truth. They are deleting their posts to cover up the cover up. Reminds me of Watergate.

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now. I just clicked on them. As to their motivations ... I care about them as much as I care about yours. Sombody's motivation doesn't matter to me. So do the accidents mentioned tell us something about HB-162 or not ? Am I, boating about in my 24' non-performance boat, likely to get smacked by someone going fast or by some drunk ? How much safer am I with HB-162 ? What makes 25/45 and not some other limits the correct numbers ? Is there any way to solve the "safety" problem other than HB-162 ?

Bear Lover · 12-21-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now. I just clicked on them. As to their motivations ... I care about them as much as I care about yours. Somebody's motivation doesn't matter to me. So do the accidents mentioned tell us something about HB-162 or not ? Am I, boating about in my 24' non-performance boat, likely to get smacked by someone going fast or by some drunk ? How much safer am I with HB-162 ? What makes 25/45 and not some other limits the correct numbers ? Is there any way to solve the "safety" problem other than HB-162 ?

If you click the link and count the posts you will find 25, not 50. Posts are being deleted! Are you just trying to confuse the issue by saying 50?

The accidents mentioned show that speed is dangerous, speed kills. There is no way to "solve the safety problem", HB162 is just one step in the right direction.

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

winnilaker · 12-21-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

US Coast Guard also defines safe speed without arbitrary speed limits! Why shouldn't we implement 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."

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule06.htm

Skip · 12-21-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

US Coast Guard also defines safe speed without arbitrary speed limits! Why shouldn't we implement 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."

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule06.htm

And of course Coast Guard statistics also reveal that given overall deaths on the waterways of this nation, one of the most unlikely ways that you will be killed or injured is by a performance boat.

Even cursory examination of readily available Federal & State data also reveals that year after year, as more & more boaters take to the water...the waterways are also becoming more safe! Fact is you are much more likely to be killed or injured on your way to the Lake, or even just puttering around your cottage. Actually, you have more chance of being struck by lightning than being struck by a Lightning....

But this debate has once again spiraled far away from facts and statistics and relevant local data and has been hijacked by argument based emotion, perceived threat and prejudice (by zealots on both sides of the issue).

And no one can win a debate or sway imbedded opinion based on those attributes.

But hey, Don, thanks once again for providing the forum...it started out with good debate and decorum...but as usual......

Anyway,

Merry Christmas to all! (and to all a good night, on this thread anyway)

Skip

Hottrucks · 12-21-2005, 01:50 PM

Why is always about Performance boats what are the over all statistics? I would think that the odds of falling out of a row boat is alot higher since there are so many more of those?? or maybe tipping over in a canoe as unstable as those are getting in or out??

chase1 · 12-21-2005, 01:57 PM

[QUOTE

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf[/QUOTE]

Bear,

Please read the definition of speeding as per this report glossary:

Speeding - Operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a
reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances.

The #4 reason for accidents will not be changed by posted limits......

Chase1

Fat Jack · 12-21-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now.

I don't know about that. I was able to go to BL’s link (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162) last night and open the author’s listed links pretty instantly. It was quiet revealing. If there are any reps out there, I hope they will have their admins take the time to open all these links and print them out. Although a speed limit might not have dissuaded many of these boaters, the totality of this stuff gives a pretty scary image of high speed boating and makes one wonder how we have survived this long with no speed rules on Winnipesaukee. Anyone involved with the decision on HB162 should surely appreciate the observation that this thread provides.

But today, while the links themselves are still in the original massage, many are dead-ending and many are saying “you do not have access to this page”. Those might have been moved to the private section mentioned above (and maybe M&M is still able to view them), or they might have been deleted.

It is very hard to connect to the OSO forums anyway, so I will summarize;
The initiater of the thread, a 4-yr member of OSO, expresses his deep concern over the unbelievably high number of tragic accidents within the "OSO family" that have happened in the short time he has been a member there. He listed 51 links that discuss just some of those. In a later post, he explains that there were even more that were not listed. He cautions that this GFBL group had better start to police themselves, or they will face legislation. A myriad of other members then weigh in to express their amazement at the numbers and their agreement with him. Some talk about things like how fast 60-70 MPH really is, how dangerous high speed boating can be, etc. It is incredibly similar to the "night time speed limit" thread and poll elsewhere on OSO that I mentioned in one of my other posts...Why is the rest of the GFBL community recognizing the problem while our local chapter is not? Then a member called CMG explains that this thread could provide "ammo" to the "grey hairs" in NH and asks that it be moved to that private forum. The thread gets pretty tame after that.

If one is able to visit the links that the author provided, it is extremely enlightening. I post them below in a different order to avoid any copying concerns. I’ve added a short description of the subject for those links I was able to open today.
Clearly, some of these accidents would not have been prevented by an obeyed 45/25 SL, but any argument that high-speed is safe to the boaters or innocent bystanders becomes pretty silly in view of this abundance of contradiction.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=99947 (Sunsation "driving like a nut and doing spinouts", "probably in excess of 75" crashed in IL. one passenger "airlifted")
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=90865 (An Outerlimits accident in a poker run in FL - no injuries)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=70082 ( a “catamaran tunnel-hull racing boat flipped at “over 100mph” in Tampa Bay, killing driver)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=87159 ( A“cig top gun” hit a marker on the Pontomac in DC and sank - occupants “swam to shore”)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=86831 (a Cheetah ran up the back of an Eliminator, killing one occupant on Lake Havasu in CA)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=100074 (you really have to see this one. A 38’ Fountain hit the shore and “went airborne”, ending up well inland. Luckily, no house to hit)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=57502 (a Baja Outlaw “traveling at a high rate of speed” hit and interstate causeway, went airborne and hit a car on the interstate)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=104363 (Missouri accident between a Sea Ray and Cig with 14 passengers on board pulling a bullet at night)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=68440 (related to the arrest of a boat operator who fled after his boat crashed into a barge in the Houston Channel) http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=70023 (a 34’ Spectre flipped in Gulf “near 100mph”. One killed)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107353 ( Driver and 3-5 teen aged to early 20's girls were ejected from a 30 or so foot Donzi as it made a sudden left hand turn at around 60mph in IL)

After this, it was just getting too slow, but the theme is obvious. Here are the remaining links;
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=83065
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82624
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82605
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=85210
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82375
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82205
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=80400
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=80337
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=79236
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78721
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78530
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78286
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=76965
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=76847
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=72990
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=72900
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=60356
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=59824
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=58250
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=58166
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=57729
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=56641
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=55563
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=54748
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53909
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53302
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53302
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=32266
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=28866
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=16902
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=10501
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107488
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107327
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=106976
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105954
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105816
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105410
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=104299
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=103831
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=95785

ApS · 12-21-2005, 06:08 PM

The confusion between "25" and "50" is that there are 50 URLs (the blue address/entries) listing recent crashes. There are just 25 "posts" in response.

Now I recall many more responses, and I'm currently away from my hard copies, so I can't say whether that forum is deleting their objectionable posts, e.g., ("The water cops can't catch ME!") or not.

It used to be that a deleted post would appear only as a single line, saying, e.g., "post deleted by 'mopower'. (And no other explanation).

None of those appear, which is odd, given their past HB162 history.

ApS · 12-22-2005, 06:17 AM

That's what it says here:

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=118901

There's something wrong in those speedboat posts? Reeeaaally?

EDIT: Never mind, the thread itself was deleted prior to 6:00PM today, 12/22/05, by the author.

The reason?

Quote:

Thread deleted by xx***
Reason: Thread being used for propoganda

I love that site SO much, I may just make it my home page.

So much bravado in one package. So much entertainment.
"Should I paint my windshield white or red?"
"The correct anchor for my Formula scratches my paint."
"Delete your cookies, then vote again and again."
"Too bad he has only two knees."

It's 45,000 Moes, Curleys, and Tony Sopranos.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-22-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I don't know about that. I was able to go to BL’s link (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162) last night and open the author’s listed links pretty instantly. It was quiet revealing. If there are any reps out there, I hope they will have their admins take the time to open all these links and print them out. Although a speed limit might not have dissuaded many of these boaters, the totality of this stuff gives a pretty scary image of high speed boating and makes one wonder how we have survived this long with no speed rules on Winnipesaukee. Anyone involved with the decision on HB162 should surely appreciate the observation that this thread provides.

But today, while the links themselves are still in the original massage, many are dead-ending and many are saying “you do not have access to this page”. Those might have been moved to the private section mentioned above (and maybe M&M is still able to view them), or they might have been deleted.
{snip}

Let'd tend to the small details first. When I follow the link to the OSO website (today, again, and on a different computer) and click on the URL/posts their I get them to come up except for the 2 that are gone and 1 (?2?) that is (are) in a section I can't get to because I'm not a paying member. If 2 makes "many" (I always considered 2 to be a couple) then I guess you can make a case for the above. FWIW I can't get to the OSO site from the URL's posted in FJ's post. Perhaps there's a copy and paste error. Perhaps that's why there's some confusion.

In any case I think FJ is correct in that the reps should view those posts ! As I said above the majority of people who are getting hurt aren't "us", innocent bystanders, but the GFBL boaters themselves. If you get rid of the criminal BUI behavior that number (where a bystander has been injured) halves. And that is assuming the speeds in all the other cases are even above 45 (which is clearly not the case for 1 and probably 2). If the purpose of HB-162 is to protect the innocent boater from being run over, than those posts clearly show how unlikely this scenario is. Now if you want to spin the bill so it's supposed to protect the boater from himself .... well time to change that state motto. What the reps will realize, even though it's not listed in a series of posts, is that there has to be many thousands of GFBL boaters who have run many thousands of hours in the years that the OSO original poster covers and not had a mishap, not run over someone. Seems to me that in any honest consideration of the totality of the boating environment this would have some meaning.

ps - Yup 51 URLs but one's a duplicate hence my number 50.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-22-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you click the link and count the posts you will find 25, not 50. Posts are being deleted! Are you just trying to confuse the issue by saying 50?

You're kidding right ? I'm trying to confuse the issue by saying there are most posts in the "dirty laundry list" ?? See my reply to FJ below. Again I see 51 URLs which reference 50 different posts of which I can't see 3 or 4. Are you clicking on those URLs in the OSO post or those URLs listed by FJ ? I believe there is some error in how those were copied and pasted into his post. They don't work for me from his post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The accidents mentioned show that speed is dangerous, speed kills. There is no way to "solve the safety problem", HB162 is just one step in the right direction.
Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

I have read that report and the prior one and there's also one for 2004 available online as well. Perhaps you should read page 41 which lists fatalities by speed. For the accident reports that list speed, only 4% of the fatalities were due to speeds above 40 mph. Now they don't breakdown what percentage of that 4% were due to collisions (ostensibly the reason for HB-162) and what % was due to to single boat mishaps. Care to guess from the OSO posts you've highlighted which is the predominate number ? This is why many opposing HB-162 see it (chance of being run over due to high speed) as a non-issue. I have a somewhat in-between view where I can see there can be too high a speed, it's just a lot higher than HB-162's 45 mph.

Mr. V · 12-22-2005, 05:25 PM

The idea of a speed limit on Winnipesaukee irks me.

Few things are as stimulating as being in a fast boat (sorta regret selling my Donzi), or watching one go by.

*flashback*

Years ago, my uncle trailered his quasi-drag boat to the lake; it required flat water, so about the only time he could run it was early AM.

I recall one early morning, he screamed across the lake doing about 100 mph.

Indelible imprint, the stuff dreams are made of...

Fat Jack · 12-22-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

the thread itself was deleted

I hope the reps that the opposers have been inviting to this forum have been getting a look at what is being said on that forum before it is being deleted. This explains why it has been impossible to view any of the other links I provided yesterday. But in case anyone missed it, I will summarize;

OSO member "pm203" explained that the supporters of HB162, the new proposed speed limit law on lake Winni are using OSO members posts "to help win their battle". He asks them to "please take a look and delete any posts that you have initiated that they may use against us." He tells them that we (the supporters of HB162 use this info to "add to their propaganda of false facts.", because we are "focusing on all threads regarding accidents and forwarding them to their legislative supporters"

This all seems to fly in the face of M&M's assertion that nothing is being deleted, no? Now, they are censoring themselves.

Isn't the best decision going to be made in Concord if all of the facts are on the table?

12-05-2005, 02:11 PM	#5
JayDV Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Fairfield, CT & island vacation Posts: 97 Thanks: 8 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Which way should it be? I'm sure many of the Forum Folk, including myself, are very interested in the arguments presented for both sides. And I for one recognize the very difficult decision process to come to a decision either way, and the "other side's" disappointment level when a decision is reached. Couple all that with a bunch of politicians making a decision based on how they deem the public will fare best, generally speaking, and (if you will excuse my citing ametaphor from an e-mail I received) you may end up at his point. The video e-mail had a fellow sitting and reading the story "Twas the night before Christmas". The word changes throughout the story-telling were to make the story as politically correct as possible for 2005 standards. To keep it brief, this is only the last lines, but you will get the drift. The "special person of non-specific holiday" cried out as he rode off through the skies, on his "non-specific holiday vehicle powered by organically fueled four-hooved creatures". "Lady of the evening!, lady of the evening!, lady of the evening! Merry "non-specific holiday" to all, and to all a good night!" Let's take care not to have others refine us to the point of losing the point. For now, enjoy the winter, and holidays, because these will soon only be memories.

12-06-2005, 07:16 AM	#14
Island Girl Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Central MA Posts: 2,352 Thanks: 18 Thanked 535 Times in 179 Posts	Huh? Sure does not look like Winnipesaukee to me! Looks a bit like a Texas lake. __________________ Island Girl ....... Make Lemonade

12-08-2005, 08:58 PM	#18
JDeere Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 295 Thanks: 74 Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts	Good Job APS!!! Good job on your post and thanks for making an effort to explain to those who seem unable to grasp the concept.

12-08-2005, 11:08 PM	#19
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	I have a hard time grasping the concept of aps not likeing someone elses rights infringing on his...but it's ok for his rights to infringe on someone elses I guess that falls under the "I don't like it , so you can't do it law" The funny part is , all the bickering on here isn't going to change anything. It's either gonna pass or not pass. If it doesn't pass , there will be those who will keep at it. If it does pass , I'm not sure if things will change a whole lot...until they go after the mega cruisers then jet skis. Just maintain a good sense of humor , for we have met the ememy , and they are us __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

12-09-2005, 07:52 AM	#21
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	I hear you Cal.I think the posts speak volumes to which ones are comman sense and which ones are....well....if you have comman sense you know what I'm talking about.I think it's pretty clear. __________________ SIKSUKR

12-05-2005, 10:02 AM	#2
Fat Jack Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 183 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Why bother? Acres / Bear Lover / Islander, Notice that virtually no others of the 65-70% of the Granite Staters who want a speed limit on their lakes are bothering to join in this "debate"? (notice the quotes around "debate"?) Don't waste your breath, no one else is. Let these people turn this forum into the region's own go-fast site and talk amongst themselves about the reasons we shouldn't have our speed limit on our lake. It lets them vent. This reminds of the argument I had with the guy I caught hunting in my back yard a few years back. I allowed bow-hunting at the time, but caught this guy with a muzzleloader. He actually argued with me for ten minutes about how muzzleloaders were just as safe as bows, how careful he was, how he had taken the hunter safety course, etc, etc, etc. Finally, I just said "get off my land and don't come back, even with a bow". He could not grasp the notion that it was my land and I could set the rules, for whatever reason I chose. He wrongly assumed that he could gain the right to muzzleload here by winning an argument with me. The poll that has these guys so upset was done by a very legitimate polling house and has a statistical accuracy of 4%. 66% (plus or minus 4%) of the registered voters in NH answered "Favor" to the question "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?". There was no misleading and no chance for re-interpretation here...the question was very simple and direct. Only 22% (plus or minus 4%) answered "Oppose". Even 68% of the Republican voters that these people claim to represent answered "Favor" (as I would have). And after all of the statewide publicity that this bill generated over the year, it's hard to fathom that these respondents did not know what "law" this question was alluding to. I also have to wonder why these people are not publicizing the results of the poll they had done? but then, I guess it must have just told them the same thing (plus or minus 4%). And it's interesting to see how they are now poo-pooing the RR&D recommendation that they wooed so vigorously and unsuccessfully. This group of dedicated and qualified legislators studied this bill intently for 10 months, held numerous public hearings and public and private meetings, read thousands of letters, emails, and publications, and did not just recommend passage of HB162, but broadened and strengthened it to include all lakes and to attach violations to the offender's driving record. And they did this in bi-partisan fashion, with 3 of the 13 Republican members voting to support the strictest version. What a statement! And it is so interesting to look back at last spring's threads and compare the shift in the debate from the non-compromising "no limits" to the compromising "why 45?". What came so resoundingly out of this summer's study, from both sides, was the indisputable fact that current laws, like the 150' rule that has been on the books for forty years and the certification course that is already in effect for virtually every last one of these arguers, are not working. And that the current MP strategy is not working. And that the safety department is out of touch with what is happening on and to this lake. While the safety director made clear that he saw no problems that needed fixing, the populace screamed out that Winnipesaukee is just an accident waiting to happen if some meaningful changes are not made now. Now let them vent...its good for them. But they can't hunt on my land, even with a bow.

12-05-2005, 01:01 PM	#4
Lakewinniboater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Westford, MA and Alton Bay, NH Posts: 225 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	not worth the breath There have been and will continue to be more lies and misinterpretations with this subject here and on other sites. It will be what it will be. You are right in one aspect though..... not worth debating here. I still believe that what was offered as a solution was best. Reasonable and Prudent! This leaves it to the MP's to judge in any case for ANY infraction whether they think the infraction should be ELIVATED to above a speeding violation to breaking the "reasonable and prudent" rule which currently is more severe (misdemeanor). However, I am sure that we don't want to talk about this here either. After all, this is about people that want to pass laws on "fear" and "discrimination". It is really disappointing that after so much progress in the USA that we can go back to passing laws without factual basis. My hopes are that once the House gets this in January that they throw it out completely. However, I am sure that the group that brought this and the old Sound Issue up will find another way in a couple of years to stir the pot. Too bad some of those people weren't taught to simply enjoy life and what we have been given. Focus on the positive. __________________ Wendy "Wasn't Me!"

12-05-2005, 02:28 PM	#6
Boater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 74 Thanks: 4 Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts	Lakewinniboater, why is it so hard to understand that not everyone sees it your way? No one is "discriminating". This is about safety, not discrimination. What's next, the ridiculous "you're just jealous" argument? If you don't agree that it is a safety issue that's fine and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Just leave out the inflamatory words like "lies" and "discrimination". No matter how much you scoff at your opponents the poll results in the other thread can't be ignored. Most people asked support a reasonable speed limit on inland lakes. If I was a legislator that wasn't directly involved with the issue that would carry a lot of weight. If those opposing hb162 have a poll with different results they should get it out there fast! I won't get involved in the bickering but I do enjoy reading the point-counterpoint. Thanks to Skip, Mee-n-Mac, Woodsy and others for some interesting reading.

12-05-2005, 02:58 PM	#7
Fat Jack Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 183 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Lies and Misrepresentations? I'm confused. Which side was the reference to "lies and misrepresentations" referring to?

12-08-2005, 08:37 PM	#17
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,788 Thanks: 2,084 Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts	Clearer? Mee-n-Mac: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake. ApS: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more. Mee-n-Mac: What exactly is at the root of this I can't say. ApS: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity. Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago: All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location). Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision. Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread? Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42566 Mee-n-Mac: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys. ApS: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch. Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"? Mee-n-Mac: I'm almost always been willing to put forth some extra effort to make somebody else feel better. ApS: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled? Mee-n-Mac: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course and test. ApS: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness. The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months. Mee-n-Mac: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed. ApS: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid. But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass. I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree? Mee-n-Mac: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem. ApS: Of course, one would. The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses.

12-08-2005, 11:17 PM	#20
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	I really dont believe it will change much.I will still use my boat ,cruising around 45-50 ish most of the time ,as I normally do and will still do 60-90 in the appropriate areas. You will still hear my twin engines(muffled of course) and have to deal with enfocement. I still cannot believe some of the things I read here. You cant have it your way.

12-09-2005, 10:18 AM	#24
Mee-n-Mac Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,943 Thanks: 23 Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts	Clearer ... somewhat This is a long one, partly because I couldn't find a way to keep the continuity of thought w/o including a lot of the prior posts. Sorry 'bout that. I said: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake. ApS replied: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more. Is it because nobody likes to go out or because people are afraid ? It's one thing to not like going out on the lake and another to be afraid to. If you want to support legislation just to change the lake so it's more appealing to you, that's your choice, but please don't use fear as a tactic to get there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I said: What exactly is at the root of this (referring to aforementioned fear) I can't say. ApS replied: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity. Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago: All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location). Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision. Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread? Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home. I can agree that there's more boats than I'd like to see* on the lake on the weekends but HB-162 doesn't address that does it. But let's pretend that it magically does, now those boats that are staying home will come and you're back to having too many boats. HB-162 doesn't address alcohol nor tonnage nor Mass (whatever you mean by that), it only addresses velocity. The majority of complaints in the "MP Please help us" thread mention 150' and RoW violations and wakes with 1 person complaining about speeds of 35+ in addition to those and 1 opining speed limits are a good idea (on weekends). Slow people down and they (150' and RoW violations) will still remain. Solve those (if ever possible) and I wonder if speed remains a real issue. While I fully understand that there are many issues and HB-162 isn't expected by even it's most ardent supporters to solve them all, let's try to stick to the topic at hand. Whether the lake is in “anarchy”, and how a minority group can cause and maintain that state is another debate. My question was specific to why are people afraid of the speeds present on the lake. You push a speed law to control speed. As has been amply demonstrated in prior posts the Littlefield incident wouldn't have been prevented had HB-162 been in effect that night. Now there may be good enough reason for a night time speed limit, Littlefield aside, though I think the 25 mph number is a tad low. I have less of a problem with that part of HB-162. That said I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference. *I'd like to by able to get dock space whenever, wherever I go. I'd like to find anchorage away from somebody's house or other boats. I'm not going to push for legislation to get rid of other people so I can have those things though. That sounds a lot like "ME, ME, ME". ps - Now you can explain why people from Mass are part of the problem and why NH (or FL) people aren't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I said: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys. ApS replied: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch. Nothing wrong it other than it's in FL and costs $2500. Perhaps something closer and less $$ might be possible. I was hoping to see if something along those lines in any way could be a potential solution, but if those people who are concerned about boat speed aren't primarily concerned about the qualifications of the driver, but rather about something else, then it won't help. I was less interested in what the GFBL crowd thought of the idea and more interested in what the thoughts of the pro HB-162 people were. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ApS replied: Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"? Sure we do and they're in all types of boats. What I was suggesting was a means of feedback/control and quite frankly it's probably needed for all boaters not just the GFBL crowd (which was part of my suggestion). If you think it's really anarchy on the lake then I can think of 3 reasons why. One is ignorance and there's a lot of that. You only attack that through education. Another is indifference and fines for infractions are a way to attack that. If the present fine structure is insufficient (and a lot of people would say it is) then it should get addressed. Lastly we have malfeasance and to attack that you've got to have increasing fines for repeated offenses and the possibility of removing the offender from the lake (which is one function of a license). In the latter 2 reasons you need to have effective enforcement to catch the offenders. HB-162 only adds another task for the MP to accomplish. Without the progressivity or removal, HB-162 can do nothing more than hand out tickets of a different variety. The anarchy you describe will continue. Why would anyone who believes that the present tickets and enforcement is insufficient, believe some more tickets will change anything. If you want to agree that additional changes, along the lines of what I've mentioned, are also necessary then I'm led to ask what will HB-162 then additionally accomplish. At best you get some people (by your admission a minority) to slow down but are you really safer ? I don't think so because what I see more often than speed in excess of 45, is operation, at speeds under 45, inappropriate for the situation. HB-162 won’t stop that. A radar trap won't stop anything under 45 but a visible MP boat does (except for the aforementioned ignorant people). I'd rather have the MP boat sitting where needed than off in those few places where a radar trap will be fruitful. BTW : I do detect a note of sarcasm and while that's just fine for your submissions to the Op-Ed page how about trying to drop it for while. Frankly all it does is make you appear to be "donkey" and has no place in any intelligent discussion of the topic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ApS replied: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled? If there's a point you're trying to make in the above, let alone one relevant to HB-162 I'm failing to see it. If I recall the incident the cop in question was also alleged to have been drunk (I detect a common theme here). He had a 28' center console fishing boat and ran through a speed zone and crashed into the docks. If I were to use your type of "logic" it would be to say this shows that speed limits don't work. Certainly didn't stop him did it. The rest of your statement sounds more like your usual tirade that anyone who has either $$ or a larger boat than you deem acceptable is lacking in moral character. They’re all drunks or lewd or rude or “entitled” therefore we don’t have to be fair to them. Let’s not do the hard work of separating the good from the bad, let just toss the whole bunch out. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I said: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course (refering to my hypothetical course and test above) and test. ApS replied: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness. The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months. What is it (above) which is not like the thorough disciplined testing of Germany or England ? The hypothetical high speed course and test I was suggesting ? How would you know ? As to nyctalopia ... well this is an interesting point. Is your answer to night vision problems to slow people down so we have slow blind people out on the lake ? If not why are you mentioning it in this context ? If you think it's enough of an issue to mention, do you think there's another way to address that problem ? Moreover I'd really like to know if it's your belief that the 2% is enough of a threat, both in numbers and severity of impairment, to us other boaters out there that it deserves concern ? Or do you have some other concern re:nyctalopia ? Honestly, I'd like to understand because you keep bringing it up. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I said: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed. ApS replied: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid. But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass. I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree? Aaaah … the rich can afford to be unafraid. And since they have so much money they are all cavalier about how they handle their boats. No need to pay attention, we’ll let the lawyers fix it. That’s their thinking is it ? We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that point. As to why those who look up are afraid … you seem to forget I had much smaller boats (Minimax) as well. I have a sailboard too. I’ve borrowed my friends SeaDoo GTX and gone out and about on the lake. I can understand the trepidation some may feel when in a small craft around larger boats, bobbing up and down in the waves. It’s easy to wonder if the guy can see you. But if I’m looking up at the other guy then it’s almost certain he can see me (assuming he’s bothering to look). It’s easier to see from the high seat than it is from a low seat. I’ve got no reason to believe that the “big” boat guy is any less, or any more, attentive than the “small” boat guy. So thinking about it why should I be more afraid of the boat I’m looking up at vs the one I’m looking directly at ? Why aren’t people afraid of the average bowrider ? Why is he assumed to be more attentive than the other guy (your reason aside) ? Remember that guy this summer in the 23’ SeaRay, ran into the pontoon boat ? This is the part I don’t understand. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I said: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem. ApS replied: Of course, one would. The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses And this is another perplexing part to me. Unless you believe this minority, by their speed alone, is causing the majority of the problems, the “anarchy”, why would somebody propose a speed limit first, before some other measures that would affect the majority who are part of the problem ? OK I say, perhaps their priorities are odd but it may still be a legitimate issue. And while I can see the potential for high speed to cause an accident (involving another boat) I don’t think you’re anywhere near that potential at 45 or even much higher. In other situations (like the Weirs when it’s crowed) the potential can be realized at speeds under 45. Looked at impartially it appears that HB-162 imposes a limitation on those who use good judgment in hopes to control those who don’t. From what I’ve seen the majority of those who aren’t using good judgment aren’t traveling above 45 when they are being “bad boys”. So HB-162 punishes the many (of that minority) for the sins of the few (in and out of that minority) while not giving law enforcement a tool that can be used to cure the biggest piece of the speed portion of the “anarchy” problem. Somebody slaloming between boats at less than 45 mph isn’t going to be affected by HB-162. And it’s the best solution to the speed part of the problem we all could imagine ? If you believe that any boat out in the Broads on a normal sunny day traveling at 55 mph is going to run over an FLL sized boat that might cross its path, short of good luck, then you should support HB-162. If anyone thinks this isn’t automatically dangerous then you should be asking for a better, fairer solution. And if it’s your belief that everyone with a “speedboat” or expensive boat is somehow morally lacking, as seems to be ApS’s view, then I have nothing polite to say about that. __________________ Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH

12-09-2005, 06:07 PM	#27
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	Skip, How refreshing in this world of increasing PC to be wished Merry Christmas in such a public way. Kudos to you . And a very Merry Christmas to you. ITD

12-12-2005, 11:27 AM	#30
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Speed Or Ignorance??? I have been thinking about this for awhile now. Is speed really the issue or is it ignorance/lack or courtesy? The speed limit is a pretty divisive issue, and just about everyone on this board knows why I am against HB-162. I want to hear from the HB-162 supporters, how exactly is a speed limit going to fix ANY of the issues on the lake? If speed were the issue, we would have collisions and accidents to point to and subsequently address. But we dont. So I am thinking the real problem is a lack of knowledge, specifically, the rules of the road and common boater courtesy. So how do we educate the masses? The legislature has passed a law requiring most (not all) who boat on Lake Winni to posess a Safe Boater Certificate by 2008. I think the real problem is that the Safe Boater Law doesn't go quite far enough. How is it that anybody with a credit card that has room for a $2500 damage claim, with absolutely no boating knowledge or experience boating at all, can rent a Jetski, or 18' Bowrider or large 20+ Pontoon boat and NOT be required to have a Safe Boater Certificate? Its absolutely insane to think that a person is capable of driving any boat safely after a 20 question checklist. But thats allowed? Why? Because the marina owners and hoteliers want to rent boats and make money, regardless of the hazard they they are creating for everyone else. Then they have the chutzpah (Merrill and Rusty) to complain when a rental boater (with absolutely no prior boating experience) gets mad at them and thinks the lake is dangerous. Of course the boat renter thinks Lake Winni is dangerous! He has no prior safe boating education, no prior boating experience and he has decided to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to the tune of $200/hr or so plus whatever money they make on the inevitable damage claim! Rusty & Merrill are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of my personal freedom! Daytrippers are also exempted from the law... so anyone with a boat not registered in NH, can launch it and go with a complete ignorance of NH boating rules and regulations! Sure there is a time limit imposed, 14 days, but who is tracking that? Most states do not have a 150' safe passage law like we do. I propose the following.... 1. New ANNUAL sticker (say $25) that is required for ALL watercraft used upon Lake Winnipesaukee, no exeptions. Thus includes powerboats of all kinds, kayaks, sailboats, canoes, PWC's. If you want to use the lake, you need to have a sticker. In order to purchase a sticker you would need to have successfully completed the safe boaters course or at the minimum, the rental course/questionaire. Initially there would be two colors... 1 color (green) indicates successful completion of the full safe boater course, 1 color (red) indicates completion of the rental course. After 2008 all boats registered in NH and used on Lake Winnipesaukee would be required to have the green sticker. Day trippers & vacationers would need to get a sticker for thier boats at a marina, and take the rental course/questionaire in order to purchase a sticker for thier boats (say $10 for a weeklong yellow sticker with the date of use printed on it). This gives the MP an easy visual check that the owner of the boat has been at least minimally educated on the NH rules & regulations pertaining to safe boating. The statute could also include that the owner of a boat be held liable for the the driver of the boats actions. This would help insure that the boat owner would inform anyone who was driving his boat of the rules etc. You could breakdown the cost of the program, marinas get a percentage for admin fees, a percentage goes to MP to cover the cost of administering the program, and the bulk goes to the MP for use specifically on Lake Winnipesaukee. (Hiring more officers, new equipment etc, dedicated to Lake Winni.) 3. No sticker = FINE say $100.00, (you gotta make it painful or people won't care.) You could possibly make the fine payable at the marina when the offending boat goes and gets a sticker... fine would have to be paid before sticker issued? not sure if thats feasible without a seriously expensive computer system, but its an idea. 4. Study the areas of the Lake with the most congestion, and look at ways to control the boat traffic. Initially try NWZ's, but if the congestion persists, perhaps weekend only "safety zones" where a reduced speed is mandated. 5. Study the current noise law and perhaps reduce it somewhat. Noise seems to be a BIG part of the issue. Remove the restriction on switchable muffler systems. Have max db you can't exceed, but if you can make it quieter than the maximum, so as not to disturb your neighbors, I don't see why that should be illegal. Woodsy

12-12-2005, 12:57 PM	#31
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Exemption for daytrippers? I can't find an exemption for daytrippers. Unless your talking about the general exemption for people holding similiar credentials from other states. IMHO that's a pretty small hole. I'm not sure I want to pay an extra fee, but I like the idea of a visible indication of compliance, I know at least a dozen people that are flaunting the law. They plan to plead ignorance and just pay the fine if that doesn't work. Plus, there is a general lack of awareness of the law. The MP should be sitting at launch ramps giving out tickets or at least warnings. The whole rental boat temporary certification is scary. The worst part is that a lot of rentals happen at the Weirs. Can you imagine, it's your first time operating a boat, it's a Saturday afternoon, in July, you have a eight people in 19' outboard and your crossing Weirs bay. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Same goes for Jetskis. I really can't understand how boat rental places manage to stay insured. Finally on noise. Loud boats and motorcycles are a pet peeve of mine. For some reason NH law enforcement can't or won't enforce these laws. I'm not sure if the laws are poorly written or it's a tourism thing. But if you read the laws, there shouldn't be such a noise problem.

12-12-2005, 05:14 PM	#32
VarneyPoint Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: MA Posts: 18 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I told myself I would stay out of this debate, but alas. Just so everyone is clear, I am against the speed limit. It will not make the lake safer. That being said, Woodsy, I can't really fathom having 2,3,or4 different colored stickers on my boat. Not only that, but I already pay enough money to register my boat, why should I have to pay more so that the MP knows I am certified? There isn't a separate sticker on my car telling the world I am a licensed auto driver. Thirdly, I hope you were kidding when you included canoes and kayaks in your post. When was the last time a kayak crashed into another boat causing serious damage and/or harm, traveled faster than headway speed, violated the right of way rule, etc? I will admit that occasionally you may see a kayak in the middle of the broads and while hard to see perhaps and not exactly exercising a lot of common sense, how will a sticker on a kayak make the lake safer? You're simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to the system. I think in another thread you proposed this idea and I think I responded to you then, sorry for being redundant. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=2294 I like the idea of a weekend NWZ. The most obvious place that comes to mind would be between Eagle and Governor's.

12-12-2005, 06:13 PM	#33
Hottrucks Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Lakes region NH Posts: 48 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems. Varney Point as far as stickers go I would proudly show my sticker right next to my Safety Sticker, yea every year I have my boat inspected (at my request by MP) and they give me a sticker and I put it on my windscreen for all to see. Maybe this sticker can be used for dual purpose???? How many of your cars have parking or dump stickers on them??? Don't they know you live or work there?? kinda the same thing I would think. Lake George does something like this I think?? Don't you pay for water use there???or is it just a large launch fee?? As far as stickers on row boat types why not they do use the water and the $$ would help MP AND LAKE ISSUES ONLY. Maybe they could get those little red flags like on OHRVs too?? Then we could see them better?? It seems we all pay to use the lake some have more advantages than other and there for they pay more. (Home on the lake pays big tax$$ = alot of advantages, person wanting a day at the beach pays to park and use the beach, small $$ it's kinda a sliding scale on your lake use I guess) Here one for the ha ha pile maybe we could charge by the pound for boats?? This way a row boats pays pennies while the big cruzers and GFBLs pay dollars ?? Since it's these boats everyone has issues with and seem to cause the must disruption on the lake?? How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags?? I know, I know, but they can find new ways to create reviniue just like before they where made so common?? Larger NWZs yes yes yes on weekends!! As far as day trippers unless they hold a card from somewhere saying they have been tought the basic rules of the road then they get the test and sticker more $$ for MP with a card yea they have to buy a sticker?? With a Better funded MP the lakes will be safer for everyone and I don't think anyone can contest that!! Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

12-12-2005, 08:45 PM	#34
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Varney... I decided to bring it up again for discussion, now that Don has opened up the HB-162 forum. Your point is correct that you don't need to show a license to register your car... however, if your license is suspended, you cannot re-register your car. I do agree with you on the fact that I really don't want to put a sticker on my boat. However... The situation is such that I think it might be a good idea... If you go to ANY launch ramp on the lake, be it private or public, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that a Safe Boater Certificate is required to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! There is a small plaque on the public ramps mentioning the 150' safe passage law... but thats it! So lots of people, daytrippers, weekenders, fisherman or anyone else who put thier boats in once in awhile don't have any idea that a certificate is required. My points are: 1. Gives everyone, including MP a quick visual check to see if the boat in question is in fact owned (not necessarily driven) by a person who took a safe boating course and passed. It also identifies those who would be daytrippers or boat renters and insures they have at least been given the 20 question checklist and that the checklist is good for 14 days... after that a SBC will be required. 2. It adds revenue to the coffers of the MP to provide funding for more officers, better training and equipment. Woodsy

12-12-2005, 10:25 PM	#35
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	maybe we don't need an extra sticker... just don't issue registrations unless the owner/operator is certified or exempt from certification. Unfortunately, I don't think that idea will be adopted, the DMV can't even seem to keep people with suspended licenses from registering their cars. VP: There are pretty reliable rumors to there being a full time NWZ between Govenors and Eagle Island starting in spring 06. FLL: There's been talk that the commitee expanded the speed limit to all large lakes and tied violations to automobile driving records. But, I haven't found an online version of the modified bill yet.

12-13-2005, 10:50 AM	#37
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I am open to any other ideas to insure compliance with the SBC (Safe Boater Certificate) law. I think the law as it is currently written has no teeth at all. There are no signs of any sort telling daytrippers or weekenders that a SBC is required, they can plead ignorance and actually have a valid excuse. If there is no way to insure compliance with the law and enforce the law, then the prevailing attitude will be "why bother?". The same goes for HB-162 as it is now written. Although they did take the step of linking boating offenses to your drivers license, there is still no funding package attached to the bill. Radar guns will cost money, Training the officers will cost money, the courts will cost money. Where is the money supposed to come from? Woodsy

12-13-2005, 03:58 PM	#38
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented. Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type. If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile. We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

12-14-2005, 08:49 AM	#43
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Bizzare comparison There was some woman on WGIR AM this morning talking in support of the boat speed limit. In my opinion the overall arguments in support of the speed limit are totally groundless, but this women was really weak. She was stating that the NH has speed limit laws on their "back country" snowmobile trails, where there sometimes is no traffic, which provides a substantial reason why there should be a boat speed limit on Winnipesaukee in all areas, 24/7. Huh?? I've been swamped and endangered in my small skiff by cabin cruisers plowing through the water, throwing giant waves. These are the real problem makers and I, for one, will start a personal crusade to target the cabin cruisers that make huge, dangerous waves if the speed limit crowd succeeds. Never have I felt endangered or threatened by any boat going 45+ mph.

12-14-2005, 11:28 AM	#44
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	I heard the same show this morning Seaplane pilot.She was on the Charlie Sherman show.Her stance was the same weak position when questioned by the female co-host about why we need this bill when she agreed there have been no speed related incidents."The public is afraid to boat on winni because of the high speeds" she says.She refered to the tourism being affected.This really flies in the face of there argument when we all know the lake has gotten more crowded on weekends.Doesn't seem like the tourists are staying away at all.I'd be surprized if any tourists even know about this bill and that they are being used as amunition.Look.there is no question in conjested areas speed should be reduced.In 99% of my observations,in my little 10ft boat by the way,fast boats slow down when the situation warrants..In the same observations,the ones that don't are not the gofast boats.It's the ones that can't go more than 40-45 mph that don't recognize when one should slow up or worse yet,keep 150ft away when travelling above headway speed.The hb 162 supporters know this is the case if they spend any time on Winni.I know there are exceptions to this,but there it's not even close as to who the captain boneheads are out there.I've had 4 or 5 encounters the last five years and none have been"gofast" boats.Let's speak from actual experience than from what I see is a fear campaign to insite the uneducated.OK,I'll take a breath now!!Breath...just breath SIKSUKR!! __________________ SIKSUKR

12-14-2005, 06:04 PM	#51
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	Skip, Very, very interesting, Thank you.

12-14-2005, 07:09 PM	#53
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Skip As an intelligent man I'm sure you can tell the difference between what "I" want, what "most speed limit supporters" want and what are predictions for the future. However I have changed my opinion since I wrote some of that many months ago. This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate. I do still want them to slow down. And Sandy does not speak for me. Plus, in fairness, you should have indicated the age of some of those quotes. And some are taken out of the context, read the posts before mine.

12-19-2005, 09:25 PM	#57
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. Then I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer. There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni. http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee I also notice they think HB162 will pass. Last edited by Bear Lover; 12-20-2005 at 01:02 AM.

12-19-2005, 09:52 PM	#58
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	For the last 80 years, Lake Winnipesaukee has been the place to go boating in a fast boat. If you had a fast boat on one of NH's many smaller lakes, someone would say; your danged speed boat is too fast for this little lake, you should take it to Winnipesaukee. And the fast boats all came to Winnipesaukee, and there was not too much problem because it's so big a lake. So, all the go-fasts have been here for a long time. They have here a history and a heritage. So, what's really needed to help accomplish compliance with a newly created 45day-25night speed limit is linking a boat speeding violation to your automobile driver's license. Give it some big nasty teeth! ......ouchey, ouch, ouch! A single auto speeding violation for going more than 10mph over the limit takes three years of no-violation driving to erase, and eliminates your good driver discount which could be $500./year for three years. Maybe the NH automobile insurance company lobbyists could influence the State legislature on this. (frown face!)

12-20-2005, 07:23 AM	#62
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,509 Thanks: 3,116 Thanked 1,089 Times in 783 Posts	Insurance Companies The insurance companies are going to see big bucks on this bill. Of course they are going to stand behind this. It'll be a sad day if NH ever become a no fault state like Mass. After reading the last Citizen article, I am under the impression the hospitality industry and some of the marinas are sending out a signal to the tourists that the lake is safe if the bill is passed. I wish they will say that this is less than 1% of the problem on the lake. I'm tired of the 'feel good' rhetorics of the proponents. I commend Skip for speaking on behalf of bothe sides and to bring into perspective the law enforcement side as well. I wish him a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

12-20-2005, 10:39 AM	#66
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I don't agree with bashing of any kind. People have have a right to form thier opinions, but bashing certainly isn't acceptable behavior. That being said, when you attempt to take away an individual's personal freedoms, the response tends to be be less than agreeable, and sometimes downright nasty. This is especially true when there is a serious question as to what the real intent of the law is. In the case of HB-162, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Pilliod, has stated that HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety. If HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety, then what is it really about? He has stated it is about fear. What exactly are people afraid of? The accident statistics for Lake Winnipesaukee don't support a need for a speed limit, in fact we had fewer accidents last year than the year before. So what is the real issue then? After reviewing the statements of Rep. Pilliod and others, one can reasonably conclude that the real reason behind HB-162 is that some people just don't like high performance boats. Dislike is not a basis for legislation that severely restricts or limits an individuals personal freedom. Woodsy

12-20-2005, 11:34 AM	#67
winnilaker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	How about a contradictory message? #1 In the recent article from the citizen I believe this was stated: "Also supporting the bill are numerous conservation groups, such as the Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the New Hampshire Lakes Association." Not sure if anyone got the recent New Hampshire Lakes Association mailer looking for more donations to help fight their causes. Guess what bullet #4 was, representing usage of our lakes that they want to protect? "* A young man speeds by in his new motorboat (a lifelong dream come true), reliving his memories of his first water skiiing lesson with his dad." For once I agree with NHLA, I look forward to the day when my children get to experience the excitement of this beautiful lake speeding in a new motorboat. However I find it ironic that they support the speed limit and they are the ones that wanted it on all NH lakes, waterways. #2 It's been stated that this law would have prevented that unfortunate accident, at 28 mph, that's only 3 mph above the proposed speed limit. However, that same Citizen article: "Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle. " So what is it then to prevent accidents or not??? #3 It's been stated that the bill IS NOT aimed at performance boats. However this response from the bill's sponsor says it quite differently: "Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. " If you read that carefully, notice it says the vessels have lack of courtesy, not the people. So if that's not obvious enough, that the boats are the problems, why not come out and be honest with everyone about it!!! I'll stop with three for now.

12-20-2005, 12:15 PM	#68
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	winnilaker None of these arguments hold water, in my opinion. 1. The young man speeding by in his motorboat could be going 35 or 45. And I doubt if dad was going over 45 during his first waterskiing lesson. I hope you children do get the experience, and that they keep it at 45 or less. 2. The Littlefield boat was going over the proposed speed limit. I don't care even one little bit about the arguments and quibbles about this. 28 is more than 25, END OF STORY. Sandy's opinion of what the law was intended to do doesn't matter. 68% of NH voters support a speed limit, THAT MATTERS! 3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

12-20-2005, 01:30 PM	#73
winnilaker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Frank, We finally do agree on something! Everyone, it really does work, this was my favorite response from a rep after we informed him of the facts. "If there should be a floor fight on this warm, touchy and fuzzy feel good legislation, I'd be happy to speak on the NH House floor and say how I was in support of HB162 and why I'm not now. I not only see HB162 as unnecessary legislation. I see it as making the job of Marine patrol enforcement much more difficult to do."

12-20-2005, 02:35 PM	#75
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Boater... 1. If safety is the primary concern and the reason behind HB-162, why did Rep. Pilliod say it wasn't? 2. Where is the accident data to support your belief that Lake Winnipesaukee isn't safe? Specifically, where is the accident data that points to excessive speed (over 45mph) as a major factor in boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? 3. As far as marinas and hotels that support the issue, how many of them are in the boat rental business? How many of them are like Rusty McClear and think its perfectly ok to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to someone who has no prior experience boating? All the renter has to do is a 20 question checklist? As long as they can afford the $200/hr its perfectly acceptable? Can you imagine if we rented cars & motorcycles with nothing but a 20 question checklist? But for some reason this is acceptable with a boat? 4. Tell me why is it the marina/hotel rental customers feel threatened? Because of speeding boats? Not likely, especially as speed is extremely difficult to judge on the water, as is distance. Perhaps it is as Rusty McClear said in his story, the rental customer was upset because nobody told them that the lake is busy, especially on summer weekends. But its not Rusty's responsibility to tell his rental customers... Woodsy

12-20-2005, 02:36 PM	#76
Fat Jack Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 183 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Winnilaker, You seem to have a Frank on your mind a lot these days. What's up with that? Jack

12-20-2005, 02:45 PM	#77
winnilaker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Jack or Frank or whomever, I'm just having an interesting debate. Charlie St Clair from "In Focus", that public access TV show, wanted to have both sides on his show for a debate, but WinnFabs didn't want to do it, they taped WinnFabs portion and then ours and taped it together to look like one show. I would have liked to have you or Frank or anybody into a real good formal debate available for everyone to see. Regardless of who wins the debate, it would allow NH citizens to put faces with the information being presented here anonymously.