POLL - Speed Limit

[Island Lover]

Unfortunately this poll is no longer valid. Another site has been sending people here to vote, and some have voted more than once. The "No Speed Limit is Acceptable" option was 33% before this happened.

[Dave R]

I was going to vote for 65 and then changed to no speed limit because even though I think 65 is plenty fast enough, there's no evidence (yet) to show that exceeding it on the lake is actually dangerous.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was going to vote for 65 and then changed to no speed limit because even though I think 65 is plenty fast enough, there's no evidence (yet) to show that exceeding it on the lake is actually dangerous.

There is a new boat on Winni that will go 130 MPH. So you think operating it at 130 is not more dangerous than operating it at 65?

What about the two boats that have flipped at high speed on Winni in the last few years? Do these accidents not count because nobody was killed?

Boats are more likely to flip at high speed

Occupants of a flipped boat are more likely to be killed at a higher speed

Reaction time is less a a higher speed

Some things are just common sense. However "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Some things are just common sense. However "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

Yeah , like not seeing all those sailboats that have flipped over the years. And they were going how fast??


Welcome back BL

[jrc]

Reasonable and prudent is the only valid speed limit. If you think a 45 MPH daytime speed limit is OK, then imagine someone zipping from the Weirs channel to Eagle island on the afternoon of 7/4/2006 at 45 MPH. It would be legal but reckless. Now imagine a bass boat zipping across the broads at 65 MPH on 5/4/2006. Safe but illegal if HB162 passes.

This is why a non-performance boater, like myself, finds fault with HB162. It does virtually nothing to improve any safety or quality of life problems on the lake. It's all about showing the performance boaters, who's boss.

I find many of the performance boats to be too loud and probably exceeding the sound laws. HB162 doesn't help with that. I find boats of all types flauting the 150' rule. No help from HB162. I see boats traveling too fast in congested areas (but well less than 45 MPH), again no help from HB162. I see inexperienced people renting boats and jet skis, no help from HB162. I see old 2-stroke motors pouring raw gas and oil into the lake and stinking up the air, no help from HB162.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by jrc

This is why a non-performance boater, like myself, finds fault with HB161.

Thats HB162, not 161. Although I completely agee with your train of thought...

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Yeah , like not seeing all those sailboats that have flipped over the years. And they were going how fast??


Welcome back BL

I also have not seen a GFBL right itself after a flip and keep going!


jrc

If HB162 passes there will be less loud boats and jet skis on the lake to do the things you mention. Therefore HB162 will help. Even the leaders of the opposition have conceded that a speed limit will reduce the numbers of fast boats.

Pouring raw gas into the lake is ALREADY against the law. And another law that is now phasing in will eliminate those two stroke engines. You see legislation IS the answer.

[Silver Duck]

you finally named a GFBL that I agree with you on! 130 mph is way over the edge, and I don't want to share the lake with somebody going that fast, casually, either! Though that's as much because it takes a really expert team to control a boat at that speed. I wouldn't mind seeing it do its thing as part of an organized event such as the antique hydroplane races, though! Out of curiosity, what kind of boat is it?

Oh, by the way, it's not really all that easy to right a capsized sailboat and keep on going, either - take it from somebody that's spent a fair amount of time in the drink waiting for the race committee launch.

Silver Duck

[jrc]

Right codeman, I fixed it.

Bear Lover, I just think too many innocent people will have there rights restricted, just so you can try to push a few ignorant yahoos off the lake. I'm not even sure the yahoos will leave, they'll just get more sneaky.

[Bear Islander]

It's interesting that in this poll 66% are in favor of some kind of speed limit. The exact same results as the state wide poll that has been criticized in this forum.

In the forum poll last January 60% were against any speed limit. Perhaps the opinions of some have changed.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1432

[ITD]

Here's an idea, let's just leave this thread to the poll and not turn it into another inane arguement thread where one or two people post 50 times each.

Happy New Year

[Island Lover]

Except for 45 MPH, the HB162 speed limit, there is a classic Bell Curve that centers on 60 MPH.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's interesting that in this poll 66% are in favor of some kind of speed limit. The exact same results as the state wide poll that has been criticized in this forum.

In the forum poll last January 60% were against any speed limit. Perhaps the opinions of some have changed.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1432

That's right and a BIG 20% say 45 or less.
Almost half of all supporters of a speed limit agree on 50 mph or more

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Some things are just common sense. However "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

Or those who see only that which supports their cause...

How many years ago did Bill M. have a boat that would do triple figures? Seems funny that nobody caused legislation to be passed to prohibit his boating experiences, at least not then.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Except for 45 MPH, the HB162 speed limit, there is a classic Bell Curve that centers on 60 MPH.

I doubt MP will write any tickets below 60 MPH hence 45 MPH is perfect.

[Gilligan]

Help me understand how a 45 mph speed limit will REDUCE boat traffic on the Lake. I have trouble with the math. Going slower means that it takes longer to get anywhere. If the trips take longer then there will be more boats at a time cruising the lake.

Let's say I plan to go from Paugus Bay to Alton Bay and back again. For the ease of a math example I'll assume that my boat goes at 90 mph (twice the proposed speed limit for illustration). My trip to Alton Bay will take almost HALF the time going fast as it would at 45 mph (the NWZs are already speed controlled). With a speed limit my cruise will take almost TWICE as long meaning my boat will be traveling on the lake almost double the time. Multiply this by all the GFBL boats and there are more boats spending more time on the lake. This is an INCREASE in boat traffic even if a few GFBL decide not to spend their money at the Lake by going elsewhere where there is NO speed limit.

If it takes 1/2 the time for a GFBL boat to get to Braun Bay or some other no rafting zone so they can anchor and blare their music is that bad? Is it better that they take twice as long to pass your location and get to Braun Bay?

Some will say that it is not always destination driven but based on time. Like a 3 hour cruise. Some boaters will want to cruise around for 3 hours regardless of speed. OK. If they are all going slower there is more potential for more congestion. At fast speed these boaters are here and then gone from the area. Not so at slower speeds.

Look at the Weirs Channel. There should be, and there is, a speed limit there. If there were NO speed limit there would be much less congestion there on a busy weekend. No bottle necks. If it were like a highway that goes under a bridge we would not need to slow significantly and there would be no traffic jams. Granted it's an extreme example but shows how slower boating means more, not fewer, boats on the water at one time.

Maybe Mac can do the math and help me figure out why this is not as obvious to others.

[Island Lover]

The math is simple

Take the number of boats that will be on the lake if HB162 is defeated, now subtract the number of boats that will leave if HB162 passes, then subtract the number of boats that will not come to the lake if HB162 passes. The result is less boats, less traffic.

[Island Lover]

The percentages had been holding steady for a while, but I just noticed a jump in the No Speed Limit percentage.

Is something funny going on?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The math is simple

Take the number of boats that will be on the lake if HB162 is defeated, now subtract the number of boats that will leave if HB162 passes, then subtract the number of boats that will not come to the lake if HB162 passes. The result is less boats, less traffic.

Not quite that simple of an equation. Much like the thought process behind this bill in general. Simple thoughts that will not necessarily provide the intended solution, as a matter of fact it will not really solve any of the issues at hand competely not touch on the most critical ones. Definitely not the saving grace to the lake by any means...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The percentages had been holding steady for a while, but I just noticed a jump in the No Speed Limit percentage.

Is something funny going on?

I looked on OSO to see if they are sending people here to vote on the poll, but there were no posts about about this forum.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Islander

I looked on OSO to see if they are sending people here to vote on the poll, but there were no posts about about this forum.

Perhaps the silent majority is beginning to speak up without beating their heads against a brick wall on here.

[fatlazyless]

here in NH, the poll that counts is by the legislature, the house & senate and governor. NH does not have a referendum vote for the individual voters when it comes to passing laws. At worst, the gfbl safety-pac succeeded in getting a no-wake zone for between Gov's Island & Eagle Isl so if they lose on their 'no speed limit', they are still batting .500, which is not too bad. So, cheer up, you-all!

[Cal]

[QUOTE=fatlazyless]here in NH, the poll that counts is by the legislature, the house & senate and governor. [QUOTE]

Thanks! That should be a wake up call to all those who beleive a speed limits aren't going to happen , to write to their politicos and express their disdain for the constraints. After all , what does an handful for golfers or horseman know , or care about the lake. They're just interested in their next re-election and where the money is coming from

Isn't government wonderful

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The percentages had been holding steady for a while, but I just noticed a jump in the No Speed Limit percentage.

Is something funny going on?

I have access to the "bilge", the secret posting forum at OSO. They have decided to fix the poll.

[winnilaker]

Bear Lover,
I certianly have to agree with you on that, unfortunately these things happen. I remember this post by the site admin on the wolfeboro-online website when Proponents tried to do the same thing.

"The poll that I posted in hopes to get a REAL public feeling on a boat speed limit turned out to be a total loss.

All the comments promoting a speed limit on the lake were posted by TWO people, consistent with bashing of the Marine Patrol that we had been forwarned about that took place on another lake website, causing them to ban a particular person. This person has a grudge against the Marine Patrol and had to use our website to try to support his cause.

Sir, at 65.175.151.153, I hope you find something better to do with your time. Anonymous postings pretending to be multiple people happen, but you took this, as well as the vote skewing to a whole new level.

We will do an analysis on the poll results, dropping all duplicate IPs that voted. I will post the results in the next few days.

keith "

It can happen to both sides, I personally would like to see a good poll. Maybe Don can filter out duplicate IP addresses as well.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Help me understand how a 45 mph speed limit will REDUCE boat traffic on the Lake. I have trouble with the math. {snip}
Maybe Mac can do the math and help me figure out why this is not as obvious to others.

No need to do any math here. I doubt the speed limit, or lack thereof, will have, or has had, any significant effect on boat traffic on the lake. People will come to the lake and boat if; they can get the time off, they can afford it and they can stay at a place they like that they think is worth the $$s paid. Next they'd be concerned about the congestion (on and off the lake) and what they can do while here. HB-162 supporters have said people are staying home out of fear. Presumably they'll come back if HB-162 passes and we'll have the same congestion (assuming some of the GFBL leave). If the GFBLs don't leave in the expected numbers then we may end up with more congestion (per their thinking). Personally I think the lake fills to (boat) capacity no matter what and at a certain level people don't bother coming because they can't use the lake in the fashion they want. No dock space, no secluded coves for anchoring, no space at the sand bars for anchoring, too much chop for skiing, etc. Speed limits won't affect this one way or the other. Hate to say it but if you want less boats on the lake, tear down more cabins and replace them with McMansions.

[John A. Birdsall]

I think when polls are taken their should be explanations for why we vote the way we do. What are we thinking when we vote. If and that is a big if the people that operate boats would follow the rules that already exsist then their would be no need of this HB 162. I love making my boat go fast. 32 MPH is plenty for me. yet the speed of a boat has all to do with the size of the boat, the knowledge and common sense of the operator. In 1959 my dad built me my own first boat, it was 6' long and had a 6 hp Elgin on it. Now a 16' lyman with a 35 could not keep up with it.

The problem is not with the MPH a boat does, but with how the operator uses it. Their is also the problem with inforcement of the law. And who is breaking the law with the MP looking at you.

Boaters education was a start, but what is needed more is common sense, and how do you teach that. I consider myself to be an above average boat handler, But doing 25 mph (really fast) I got thrown out of the drivers seat last summer, it scared me and I am thankful that I was more than 150' from anyone. It was the waves that caused that problem and I should have been paying closer attention to them waves when their was no other boat nearby

Get them boats out their doing better than 45 mph and have a storm come up. Maybe they will get back to port faster but at what expense.

If you could legislate common sense then open the speed limit up.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Should this insane idea for a speed limit somehow pass through the legislature, I think we should give the supporters of the bill just what they asked for. Initially, we should identify the lakefront locations of the major supporters of HB162 and focus the initial "rallys" in these areas as a "show of gratitude" for their deep concern for everyone else's welfare. We'll organize every boat we can find; large, small, fast, slow, cruisers and cigarette boats - for these "thank you" rallys.

We'll parade by the supporters' waterfront homes all day (150' apart and 150' from anything else) doing 25mph, waving to the happy supporters as we go by. I'm sure they will love the 4' swells pounding their boats, docks and shorelines all day long. I'm sure that they'll send little Junior out in his kayak to watch the parade, because a 25mph boat is a safe boat in their mind. Forget the 4' swells that will capsize poor Junior and trash their waterfront property - they're happy now that the responsible boaters operating under control but doing more than 45mph (tossing a 1' wake) are off the lake and pose no danger whatsoever.

We should also boycott any retail establishment owned by anyone who has expressed support for this bill. Mill Falls and sister companies - this means YOU!

Be careful what you wish for WINFABS crowd - you just might get it.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I have access to the "bilge", the secret posting forum at OSO. They have decided to fix the poll.

It is clear that the idiot that did this should stay "Off Shore" as he is clearly a moron, however I find it amusing that OSO does not block Winnfabs people from joining but Winnfabs does research to try and catch infiltrators. Who has the real secret agenda here???

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Should this insane idea for a speed limit somehow pass through the legislature, I think we should give the supporters of the bill just what they asked for. Initially, we should identify the lakefront locations of the major supporters of HB162 and focus the initial "rallys" in these areas as a "show of gratitude" for their deep concern for everyone else's welfare. We'll organize every boat we can find; large, small, fast, slow, cruisers and cigarette boats - for these "thank you" rallys.

We'll parade by the supporters' waterfront homes all day (150' apart and 150' from anything else) doing 25mph, waving to the happy supporters as we go by. I'm sure they will love the 4' swells pounding their boats, docks and shorelines all day long. I'm sure that they'll send little Junior out in his kayak to watch the parade, because a 25mph boat is a safe boat in their mind. Forget the 4' swells that will capsize poor Junior and trash their waterfront property - they're happy now that the responsible boaters operating under control but doing more than 45mph (tossing a 1' wake) are off the lake and pose no danger whatsoever.

We should also boycott any retail establishment owned by anyone who has expressed support for this bill. Mill Falls and sister companies - this means YOU!

Be careful what you wish for WINFABS crowd - you just might get it.

Be sure to get a permit for your rally.

"... We'll organize..." "...We'll parade..."

http://www.state.nh.us/safety/ss/formsevent.pdf

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Be sure to get a permit for your rally.

"... We'll organize..." "...We'll parade..."

http://www.state.nh.us/safety/ss/formsevent.pdf

Without a doubt...we would never think of breaking the law.

[CMG]

[QUOTE=Bear Lover]There is a new boat on Winni that will go 130 MPH. So you think operating it at 130 is not more dangerous than operating it at 65?
QUOTE]


and what boat / who's boat would that be?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

There is a new boat on Winni that will go 130 MPH. So you think operating it at 130 is not more dangerous than operating it at 65?

What about the two boats that have flipped at high speed on Winni in the last few years? Do these accidents not count because nobody was killed?

Boats are more likely to flip at high speed

Occupants of a flipped boat are more likely to be killed at a higher speed

Reaction time is less a a higher speed

Some things are just common sense. However "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

Operating at 130 can be more dangerous than operating at 65 but it does not have to be. 130 in a boat built for it accross smooth water with no one else around is far safer than going 65 between Locke Island and Glendale on a Saturday afternoon in July. It's not the speed that's dangerous, it's the operator.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Unfortunately this poll is no longer valid. Another site has been sending people here to vote, and some have voted more than once. The "No Speed Limit is Acceptable" option was 33% before this happened.

Internet polls are never going to have any scientific merit or validity. There have been too many of these already, each as comical as the next. The only polls that can be given any credence are the ones that were done by ARG and that NHRBA had commissioned. These were both done by legitimate and qualified polling firms using proven methods for statistical accuracy. And the only results that should be considered from these polls are the opinions of NH's citizens and landowners, who own our lakes.

PS, I notice that we aren't seeing supporters of HB162 (majority version) posting on the "drive safely" forums to recruit safe drivers to come here and vote in this poll.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

We'll parade by the supporters' waterfront homes all day (150' apart and 150' from anything else) doing 25mph, waving to the happy supporters as we go by. I'm sure they will love the 4' swells pounding their boats, docks and shorelines all day long. I'm sure that they'll send little Junior out in his kayak to watch the parade, because a 25mph boat is a safe boat in their mind. Forget the 4' swells that will capsize poor Junior and trash their waterfront property - they're happy now that the responsible boaters operating under control but doing more than 45mph (tossing a 1' wake) are off the lake and pose no danger whatsoever.

We should also boycott any retail establishment owned by anyone who has expressed support for this bill. Mill Falls and sister companies - this means YOU!

What you are and would be clearly demonstrating is your total lack of respect and concern for the welfare of your fellow man. Kinda reinforcing what many people are worried about with regard to some owners of go-fast boats.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Orion

What you are and would be clearly demonstrating is your total lack of respect and concern for the welfare of your fellow man. Kinda reinforcing what many people are worried about with regard to some owners of go-fast boats.

Since when does "nice" come into play? I got cut off on the road today at least 6 times - even one guy gave me the finger after cutting me off. The world is not nice - period. That goes for the lake as well. HB 162 supporters are not being "nice" when their agenda is to rid the lake of a certain type of user, whether they admit it or not. Plans for the "rally" are still underway.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Since when does "nice" come into play? I got cut off on the road today at least 6 times - even one guy gave me the finger after cutting me off. The world is not nice - period. That goes for the lake as well. HB 162 supporters are not being "nice" when their agenda is to rid the lake of a certain type of user, whether they admit it or not. Plans for the "rally" are still underway.

Please don't rally in front of my house, at the point of Governor just accross from Eagle.

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Unfortunately this poll is no longer valid. Another site has been sending people here to vote, and some have voted more than once. The "No Speed Limit is Acceptable" option was 33% before this happened. ... Last edited by Island Lover : Yesterday at 08:48 PM. Reason: poll tampering

Island Lover started this Poll and now calls it invalid. Someone claims a "secret" forum is sending people over here to skew the poll. Claims that some have voted more than once. I tried, I can only vote once. Even used a different computer and ISP. The forum remembers who voted and only members can vote. How many new members have there been recently? Very few. Webmaster Don keeps a watchful eye on things and would note new members jumping quickly to the Poll.

I think the problem is that the poll is not turning out the way you expected. It's now more like last years poll. The poll so far represents a small sampling of forum members. The only reason I took the poll was to see if I could vote more than once as you claimed but I only get to do it once.

Sounds like you started this poll expecting the results to support your position rather than to really get a feel for what the forum users think.

[Island Lover]

Skipper

Your post is a perfect example of somebody getting all excited when they have no idea what they are talking about.

winnilaker, the leader of the opposition, agrees that the poll was cheated on. Please read his post.

The evidence of the tampering was posted but Don deleted it, probably because it was from another site.

There was a poll almost a year ago on speed limits. Several members of an offshore boating site came here to vote on the poll and post their opinions even though they are not part of the lakes area community. After the current poll was up for a few days there was a post on the other site asking that if anybody still had access to this forum they should come here and vote on the poll. At this point the percentages started to change.

One member of that site posted that he had two names he used here and that he had voted with both of them. These posts were on a "secret" part of a public forum. Only certain members had access.

In my opinion, and the opinion of the opposition, that makes this poll invalid.

I think it might be better if Don deleted the entire thing so people don't get the wrong idea about what is going on.

[ITD]

Delete the thread, isn't that why people were upset at the other site. Seems to me the Webmaster should be able to tell if people are voting multiple times and usually he lets us know if something hokey is happening. Deleting information just because it doesn't support your cause is wrong.

[winnilaker]

I found this report done December of last year(2004), titled:

"Public Opinion Poll Results
in the Study of Select Economic Values of
New Hampshire Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds"

http://www.nhlakes.org/docs/econ-stu...final-1-05.pdf

If not having speed limits were really an issue on the lakes, why didn't it show in this report?

Supporters keep zoning in on this survery (600 people) that 64% favor speed limits. Yet the survey didn't disclose the limits set by HB162. I haven't seen the whole survey, but did it even inform the individuals of House Bill 162. How about a survey, that attached 2 pages by the supporters and 2 pages by the opposition and then the question, do you support HB162 as ammended?

That seems fair to me and I would take that survey seriously.

I don't especially care for this poll, because it really doesn't apply to our situation. How about another poll where it asks, Do you support HB162 as ammended or not?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

... Deleting information just because it doesn't support your cause is wrong.

You are correct. Deleting the poll because it doesn't support a cause would be wrong.

However deleting the poll because BOTH SIDES agree that the poll has been tampered with is not wrong. That is the situation we have here.


winnilaker

I think you should start such a poll. But I also think you should use the poll option that will display the usernames of who voted. I wish I had.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

winnilaker
I think you should start such a poll.

Or you could ask him to simply publish the results of the poll that they already had done....not the internet poll that they were able to get to support their side by recruiting nationally, but the real poll they had done by a legitimate polling firm, whose results confirm that they are a tiny minority. Why is there no discussion about that poll?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

You are correct. Deleting the poll because it doesn't support a cause would be wrong.

However deleting the poll because BOTH SIDES agree that the poll has been tampered with is not wrong. That is the situation we have here.

Sorry Island Lover, but two people think the poll was "tampered with" not both sides, unless you two are the only ones whose opinion counts in this debate. It would really be nice if Don was able to and if willing check the votes to see if any individuals tried to vote multiple times. If they had perhaps he could post how many times and which category. If your objection is other sites asking members to vote on this poll then I respectfully disagree that that is fixing the pole since this is a public forum open to all. Deleting these results would be a mistake.

Winnilaker, I wonder how much it would cost to commission a survey with unbiased non-leading questions and conduct it in a scientifically valid way.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry Island Lover, but two people think the poll was "tampered with" not both sides, unless you two are the only ones whose opinion counts in this debate. It would really be nice if Don was able to and if willing check the votes to see if any individuals tried to vote multiple times. If they had perhaps he could post how many times and which category. If your objection is other sites asking members to vote on this poll then I respectfully disagree that that is fixing the pole since this is a public forum open to all. Deleting these results would be a mistake.

Winnilaker, I wonder how much it would cost to commission a survey with unbiased non-leading questions and conduct it in a scientifically valid way.

I didn't indicate we spoke for everybody, I indicated we spoke for both sides.

Unfortunately you did not see the evidence. If you had I don't think you would be saying the things you are.

And if you knew more about how computers and this forum work you would know there is no way to know if one person voted more than once.

It is also very possible, as has been pointed out, that BOTH sides could have cheated. That is why the results are not valid.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I didn't indicate we spoke for everybody, I indicated we spoke for both sides.

Unfortunately you did not see the evidence. If you had I don't think you would be saying the things you are.

And if you knew more about how computers and this forum work you would know there is no way to know if one person voted more than once.

It is also very possible, as has been pointed out, that BOTH sides could have cheated. That is why the results are not valid.

You said "both sides" agree, not two individuals from both sides, the posts are very clear, you spoke for everyone and now that you have been called on it you don't like it.

I wish you would explain and detail this so called evidence so I could elevate myself to the intellectual level at which you feel you exist. I'm always troubled by people who say if you only knew what I knew then you would understand, usually these people know nothing, maybe you're different.

You are very quick to dismiss the results that don't support your position while on the other hand had the results supported your position you would have fought tooth and nail to defend them even though the same questions would have existed. ( How did I know that? Truth is I don't but I figured I would state my theory on how you would have behaved as fact, just like you state your theories as fact.)

So, it is also very possible that nobody cheated and the results truly represent the public sentiment or a few knuckleheads cheated from each side offsetting each other. Once more, a call from another forum for people to come to this forum to vote, does not constitute cheating.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

You said "both sides" agree, not two individuals from both sides, the posts are very clear, you spoke for everyone and now that you have been called on it you don't like it.

I wish you would explain and detail this so called evidence so I could elevate myself to the intellectual level at which you feel you exist. I'm always troubled by people who say if you only knew what I knew then you would understand, usually these people know nothing, maybe you're different.

You are very quick to dismiss the results that don't support your position while on the other hand had the results supported your position you would have fought tooth and nail to defend them even though the same questions would have existed. ( How did I know that? Truth is I don't but I figured I would state my theory on how you would have behaved as fact, just like you state your theories as fact.)

So, it is also very possible that nobody cheated and the results truly represent the public sentiment or a few knuckleheads cheated from each side offsetting each other. Once more, a call from another forum for people to come to this forum to vote, does not constitute cheating.

Yes, I said "both sides agree". It seems you want to pick apart every word of my post looking for a misstatement. So go ahead and declare victory on this point, it's not worth the argument. I should have said "representatives of both sides agree". And to answer you next question: Yes, in my opinion we are both qualified to call ourselves representatives.

The evidence was a screen shot from another site. In it a member admits, in fact boasts, at having two usernames on winnipesaukee.com. And that he used both names to vote no limits.

I will try and send you the image in a private message, if it doesn't work you could PM me an email address.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Yes, I said "both sides agree". It seems you want to pick apart every word of my post looking for a misstatement. So go ahead and declare victory on this point, it's not worth the argument. I should have said "representatives of both sides agree". And to answer you next question: Yes, in my opinion we are both qualified to call ourselves representatives.

The evidence was a screen shot from another site. In it a member admits, in fact boasts, at having two usernames on winnipesaukee.com. And that he used both names to vote no limits.

I will try and send you the image in a private message, if it doesn't work you could PM me an email address.

No need to send me the screen shot, I believe you. One knucklehead shouldn't invalidate the whole poll. Stooges like that guy always try to beat the system and pretty much always get caught. Seems to me I recall a case where a person was posting as two different individuals on this forum to support a business (restaurant ?) he was quickly outed by the webmaster because his posts came from the same web address.

My problem here is not really your comments, it's that a poll that we are having trouble finding to verify how it was taken is quoted as infallable gospel, yet this poll is invalid because one rocket scientist claims to have voted twice. I and others have asked for information and stats to support a 45mph speed limit and have received nothing but emotional banter and a dubious poll (ok two dubious polls, one for, one against). When we ask for support to some of the claims, we get answers questioning our ability to grasp concepts rather than simple proof of how a speed limit will make things better.

We get answers like all the fast boats will leave (wrong), its implied that swimmers and paddlers will be safe in the middle of the lake because boats will be limited to 45 mph (wrong again). Proponents talk about wakes and shore erosion (won't be solved by a speed limit).

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Skipper
Your post is a perfect example of somebody getting all excited when they have no idea what they are talking about.
winnilaker, the leader of the opposition, agrees that the poll was cheated on. Please read his post.

If you can not debate the issues then distract and attack the debaters. What a concept.
The poll does not go your way so there must be something wrong with the poll. I point out a few items and express my opinion and you claim I’m “all excited” and I don’t know what I’m talking about. Just because you say it does not make it true. You do not retain credibility that way.

You might want to believe that YOU cause me to get all excited with these postings. You are not accurate, I was not excited when I posted my message and I’m not excited now. What does my alleged excitement have to do with a speed limit anyway? Nothing. It is a tactic you, Island Lover, use to try distract from the issue. It is because of YOU that I even bothered to take the poll. I used different methods trying to vote more than once (as you claim others could do) but I could only vote once.

Of course I read Winnilaker’s post, #25, where he seems to agree with you that a secret sub forum of another web site advocated “fixing” the poll here. He recounted a story about another website’s poll on speed limits where a group allegedly tried to do the SAME THING. Keep reading that post. “All the comments promoting a speed limit on the lake were posted by TWO people,..” It continues to indicate that a PERSON (singular) took multiple identities and poll skewing to a new level. Note that the poll tampering on that other web site was discovered and considerably more extensive than the one duplicate vote you allege took place here in this poll.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

One member of that site posted that he had two names he used here and that he had voted with both of them. These posts were on a "secret" part of a public forum. Only certain members had access.
In my opinion, and the opinion of the opposition, that makes this poll invalid.

The person is entitled to ONE vote so his 2nd screen name vote should not count. That is ONE alleged bogus vote. Hardly evidence of poll invalidating tampering. Whatever it was, I think if there were real evidence of tampering webmaster Don would alert us. I have confidence in our webmaster

I agree with ITD, show us the facts. We are recognizing what you are trying to do. Let’s stop all this distracting babble and discuss the issue of Speed Limits. Add something new or thought provoking on the topic. Not rehashing old material or trying to discredit those with an opposing view. Stay on topic.

[fatlazyless]

Let's see, interstate highway Route 93 has a speed limit of 65, conditions permitting, and cars have brakes, and the road has painted & marked lanes. Boats do not have brakes, and there are no painted & marked lanes out on the waters. Therefore, a 45day-25night speed limit is necessary & reasonable for the safety all lake users.

And let's not forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat. It is, for the great majority of boaters, a very fast speed!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Let's see, interstate highway Route 93 has a speed limit of 65, conditions permitting, and cars have brakes, and the road has painted & marked lanes. Boats do not have brakes, and there are no painted & marked lanes out on the waters. Therefore, a 45day-25night speed limit is necessary & reasonable for the safety all lake users.

And let's not forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat. It is, for the great majority of boaters, a very fast speed!

There you go comparing apples to oranges again. On rte 93 , vehicles have a 65 mph limit. They also travel , at times, 6to7 feet apart in adjecent lanes. They travel in a very limited space between lines. If you drift out of those paved and striped lanes and hit the grass at 65 mph , you will be totally out of control. Tires on dirt or grass or weeds offer little to no traction or control at the speed. Yeah , yeah , I know , lets lower THAT to 45 and 25 too. See , I said it before you. Sure sounds rediculous doesn't it?
Boats are not limited to 12' wide lanes...they can go 50'(or more) right or left and still have control , because they are still in the medium they were designed for. They should be 150' feet apart OR be at no wake speed.
We defeated speed limit...you can and will to.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Originally Posted by ITD

It would really be nice if Don was able to and if willing check the votes to see if any individuals tried to vote multiple times. If they had perhaps he could post how many times and which category.

That would be quite time consuming for Don.
Another problem is that there are often multiple forum members in a household. There are four here that happen to be on the same side. I’m sure that isn’t always the case. (Only one of us voted in this poll – guess who! )

[rickstr66]

The poll is invalid. Here is a way to fix it. Take out the 2 factors that were most likely currupted, that is the "45mph"( since that is what any supporter of the bill would vote) and the "no limit" (since that is what opponents of the bill would vote). What are you left with? You are left with 5% voting for a speedlimit that falls within the bill and 33% that falls outside of the bill. Interesting! Don't you find?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by rickstr66

The poll is invalid. Here is a way to fix it. Take out the 2 factors that were most likely currupted, that is the "45mph"( since that is what any supporter of the bill would vote) and the "no limit" (since that is what opponents of the bill would vote). What are you left with? You are left with 5% voting for a speedlimit that falls within the bill and 33% that falls outside of the bill. Interesting! Don't you find?

I dunno about this logic... Anyone who supports an even lower limit than 45 would probably support this bill just because "it's better than nothing". I think you need to count the 45 and under crowd as one.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by rickstr66

The poll is invalid. Here is a way to fix it. Take out the 2 factors that were most likely currupted, that is the "45mph"( since that is what any supporter of the bill would vote) and the "no limit" (since that is what opponents of the bill would vote). What are you left with? You are left with 5% voting for a speedlimit that falls within the bill and 33% that falls outside of the bill. Interesting! Don't you find?

Sorry, that doesn't work.

I voted for 60 mph, my first preference. However I strongly support HB162.

One of the reasons for this poll was to show that support is very strong for a speed limit higher than 45. Its a shame the opposition couldn't bend a little and give us a more reasonable limit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Sorry, that doesn't work.

I voted for 60 mph, my first preference. However I strongly support HB162.

One of the reasons for this poll was to show that support is very strong for a speed limit higher than 45. Its a shame the opposition couldn't bend a little and give us a more reasonable limit.

Funny you should mention...I voted for a speed limit too , but 65 mph, If it's ok for highways where vehicles are only a few feet apart it's gotta be ok for water where you SHOULD be 150' apart.
And even 25 can be too fast at night depending upon conditions



After all 45 mph is a half fast speed

[rickstr66]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I dunno about this logic... Anyone who supports an even lower limit than 45 would probably support this bill just because "it's better than nothing". I think you need to count the 45 and under crowd as one.

Dave,

You can't discount one group without the other. I have seen or heard of no proof that only 1 side currupted this poll. Therefore the logical thing to do would be to eliminate those 2 factors and look at what is left. It makes no sense that if you support a 45 mph speed limit you would anwser a poll with a 60 mph limit. Does it? Why would you if in your heart you believe 45mph is the right thing to do?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by rickstr66

... It makes no sense that if you support a 45 mph speed limit you would anwser a poll with a 60 mph limit. Does it? Why would you if in your heart you believe 45mph is the right thing to do?

Do you think everybody that supports HB162 thinks 45 is the perfect speed? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I believe 60 is the best answer. But the way it stands I have two choices, support 45 mph or support no limit. I chose 45. Other people might rather have no limit that 45, that is their choice.

45 is better than nothing!

If you think a poll is a great idea start your own. I recommend you chose the option that displays the name of everybody that votes. That makes it much harder to fix.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

If you think a poll is a great idea start your own.

No internet poll is going to mean anything or be valid...ever. If you want a valid poll, hire a legitimate polling firm like Gallup or American Research Group to conduct one using scientifically proven polling techniques. And be sure the questions are not leading and the results say where the respondents are from.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Sorry, that doesn't work.

I voted for 60 mph, my first preference. However I strongly support HB162.

One of the reasons for this poll was to show that support is very strong for a speed limit higher than 45. Its a shame the opposition couldn't bend a little and give us a more reasonable limit.

I think that we could bend...You take away the daytime limit and we take on your 25mph night limit. Who really needs to go more than 25mph in a vehicle with no headlights and no brakes in the dark???

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that we could bend...You take away the daytime limit and we take on your 25mph night limit. Who really needs to go more than 25mph in a vehicle with no headlights and no brakes in the dark???

Who really needs to go 160 mph on lake Winnipesaukee in a vehicle with no brakes in the daytime?

Woodsy claims to have seen a boat go that fast on Lake George. What daytime limit can you live with?

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I believe 60 is the best answer.

IL,
We agree in most cases, but not here. There is not a single jurisdiction that has tried a 60mph limit, so we have no evidence that a 60mph limit will work, as 45mph limits have been proven to do. 45/25 is the norm, some as low as 40. Those have all proven enforceable and effective, as at Lake George. And 45 is plenty fast in a boat, surely fast enough for any type of safe boating activity.

With the unfortunate admissions from Glendale about their lack of desire for this law (a "burden" to Barrett versus a "tool" to Schneider), and the tolerance that all law enforcers give to all speed limits, a 60mph limit would probably be enforced at 75mph. Who wants boats flying around our crowded lakes going 75MPH with MP saying "I told you so"? Isn't that exaclty the kind of speed that brought this whole issue up?

And with a 45 mph limit, a patrol boat can easily determine speed by following ("I was following him your honor, my boat was going 55MPH, as fast as it could go, and I could not keep up, so I know he was going over 55."). The MP has no boats that can go 80MPH to use this tactic with a 60MPH limit. To get them such a boat would require just the kind of funding that the opposers are objecting to. Recall that Schneider has previously explained that their speed limit actually saves them money rather than costs, because it reduces the complaints and need for officers when the traffic is going slower.

45/25 works so perfectly at Lake George, which is such a parallel lake to so many of ours in so many ways. It is the perfect example, and we are foolish if we do not learn from and copy it.

Perhaps the 160MPH event under the eyes of Lake George MP (assuming that actually happened) was in one of those supervised events like HB162 also allows?

Must head off for work now.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Perhaps the 160MPH event under the eyes of Lake George MP (assuming that actually happened) was in one of those supervised events like HB162 also allows?

Must head off for work now.

Hey Ski Man...

Are saying that I am making this event up? Perhaps calling me a liar? Maybe if you actually boated on Lake George you might have witnessed this event. It was not a sanctioned event.

Woodsy

[Bear Lover]

Woodsy

I'm wondering why you are telling us that high performance boats are going 160 mph on Lake George in violation of a 45 mph speed limit. Do you think Lt. Schneider has told his officers to allow boats to go 115 mph over the speed limit without a ticket or even a warning? I don't think that's plausible!

This doesn't make us like the idea of having these boats on Winni. It seems to argue we should be trying to keep them away.

Do you think this boat going 160 mph was a safe thing, or an unsafe thing?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

This doesn't make us like the idea of having these boats on Winni. It seems to argue we should be trying to keep them away.

Which clearly demonstrates Winnfabs' true agenda - to rid the lake of high performance boats.

[Woodsy]

I have it on video... it occured about 3-4 years ago in September.

There was next to nobody on Lake George when this event occured.... the boat was more than capable of going that fast safely during the prevalent conditions. The only one who risked getting hurt was the driver.

I personally would never go 160 MPH, I don't have that desire. However, if the conditions were right, I don't particulaly care if someone else wants to go that fast. Thats were the "reasonable & prudent" kicks in. Would I find that 160MPH is "reasonable & proper" on a crowded summer saturday in the broads? No I wouldn't.

It really boils down to the prevalent conditions at the time. Sometimes, I think anything greater than headway speed is too fast in areas like the Weirs or Meredith Bay on July 4th. Other times, there is next to nobody on the lake. Why does anyone care how fast a person goes then?

Woodsy

[John A. Birdsall]

It seems to me that sometime in the 1940's the story goes that their was a varnish boat on the lake, that was kicked off cause it went too fast. It went 77 MPH. It had to get to a wide section of the lake to turn around at high speeds. I recall Officer Cates in Alton Bay, he would have a hard time he had a 14-16' starcraft with a 35 hp evinrude on it. try catching one of the boats on the lake today. But he knew where every boat lived in Alton Bay. Especailly mine!