Let's try this compromise thing again.

Airwaves · 02-26-2006, 05:52 PM

Just a thought, but since folks on this list have very strong opinions on both sides of this issue it might be interesting to see if we can play "Senator" and come up with a compromise.

No name calling, no insults, just real ideas on how to go forward.

Perhaps we should even explain our position (briefly) on why we want an item included or eliminated from the bill.

For example:
Mandatory Education; CG Statistics show education reduces fatalities.

Who knows, if the folks on this list can reach a compromise perhaps it can be presented to lawmakers as an alternative

All the best,
Pollyanna

fatlazyless · 02-26-2006, 06:22 PM

How about 45day-25night speed limts on fridays, saturdays, & sundays, the three busiest days by far. GF-BL's could enjoy the much less crowded lake during monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday and it could lessen the weekend crunch and could increase overall use of the lake and tourism.

To make this as fair as possible, the fri-sat-sun vs mon-tues-wed-thurs schedule could be flip-flopped every year. On even years, the GF-BL's get the weekends, and on odd years they get weekdays.

By doing this yearly shift it's not like one group gets the gold mine and the other group gets the shaft.

overlook · 02-26-2006, 07:59 PM

I do not agree, but untill some kind of study by a non bias firm can conclude that a speed over 25 at night is responsable for accidents or 45 daytimefor that matter. Weekend or not it is not the right thing to do.
For the economic side, I do not see the impact from tourist to be of significance either way. I myself will most likely not be boating to dinner any more, the long ride and the wake disturbance might not be worth it. Not to mention the feul economy for traveling at 25 would be horrible.
As far as the Loons are considered, I have not seen any thing that convinces me that fast boats are killing young ones. This is because I never seen them out in the open in the day where I was traveling above 45mph. In the coves I have seen them plenty of times idling around. And yes I can see them from at a good distance at above 45. I instantly change course to avoid comming near loons or any object in the water.
$.02

Cal · 02-26-2006, 08:10 PM

I'll take the weekdays you want to give me. I can't stand the weekends anyway. With the congestion , crowded town docks , back ups at the Weirs channel remind me of rush hour in the city. The least of my concerns is speed.
Weekdays on the lake are pure Heaven

Have a lobsta and prime rib dinner at Sandy Point and cast off by 8pm in time to beat the sunset back to Naswa. And on a Wednesday night MAYBE see three other boats on the trip back.

gtxrider · 02-26-2006, 08:42 PM

Did anyone ever think of no speed limit in the broads and 45 MPH in the bays? Just a thought? Get your jollies in the wide open spaces.

jrc · 02-26-2006, 09:32 PM

Having different speed limit for different parts of the lake is a good idea, as is having different limits during busy weekends. There are obvious places and times where even 45 mph is too fast.

Practically defining these time and places in the simple text of a law is the problem. For example, what constitues a bay? What is the border of the Broads? Most bays on Winnipesaukee don't have clear delineation. Where does Wolfeboro Bay end? What constitutes a busy weekend? What if rains on the Forth of July, then can someone go fast?

But maybe something like a 1000' clearance from land and other boats for speeds over 45 mph would work?

overlook · 02-26-2006, 09:39 PM

Keep in mind HB-162 is all NH waterways, Individual problems require individual solutions. 2005 there was no speed limit between Eagle and Gov.-- now there is.
That was a realistic solution to a conjested problem.

Woodsy · 02-27-2006, 02:52 PM

I think most of us agree that we would like to see an improvement in boating quality on Lake Winnipesaukee. We just loudly disagree on how to go about it. In my opinion, you cannot legislate common sense or courtesy, and no written law will eliminate "fear" either percieved or warranted. If we based our laws on fear, after 9/11 there would be no more young men of Arab descent allowed in America. I also think there is a large percentage of WinnFabs that just doesn't like hi-performance boats and they are playing the "fear" card in order to get thier way and rid the Lake of Hi-Performance boats.... so now we have thier hidden "agenda".

On the other side of the fence are the "libertarians", (and I use that term in the loosest sense) such as myself, who also have an agenda, the less government interference the better off we are. I really don't see any problems on Lake Winnipesaukee that cannot be creatively solved in other ways. There is no need to restrict an individual's personal freedom when there is not any factual data to support the restriction.

So how do you compromise? I think its already started. Here is my list (in no particular order) for improvements that will not require a restriction to anyone's personal freedoms... and they won't break the bank either!

1. Better funding for the Marine Patrol... Adding more patrols to some of the busier areas of the lake will work wonders in calming down bad behavior. I think there is a bill in committee to address this, and more than likely there will be an increase in boat registration fees. I would like to see canoes & kayaks registered as well... but thats just me.

2. I would pass HB-162 with the "reasonable & prudent" standard... It might be difficult, although not impossible, to issue a citation with respect to the courts. However it does provide certain tools to the MP officer. It gives the officers a "probable cause" to stop a vessel and conduct a quick inquiry and registration check. He can then have a conversation with the operator, explain the situation and let them go on thier way. It also gives the MP officer a chance to determine if the boat operator has been drinking and possibly conduct a field sobriety test. There is the added benefit of not affecting the bottom line. Radar training will be expensive... 8 hours of classroom + 32 hours of pulling the trigger on the radar gun x 15 FT MP officers = VERY EXPENSIVE.

3. An easier to enforce noise law... its already been proposed, HB-1624, and probably will sail through the legislature. Its easy to enforce and doesn't add cost to the bottom line.

4. NWZ's... I think a NWZ on the SW side of Bear Island between Meridith Neck will work well in calming that stretch of water. There are probably a few other places a strategically placed NWZ will help alleviate congestion and calm the waters. This is also an inexpensive solution.

5. Boater Education... I think tightening up of the Boater Education laws is in order. Eliminate the Internet option and require a proctored exam. I also think anyone who is renting a boat should be required to have thier SBC. We don't rent cars to people without licenses, we shouldn't rent boats to people without an SBC either! I think there is a bill being studied now, but it will be interesting to see how marina's like Fay's & Thurstons like this bill.

5. Allow the off-duty MP officers to work "details" similar to other LEO's. I am not sure if its allowed or not, but it should be allowed! I feel bad that certain camp traditions are being no longer allowed. Let the Camp Director hire an MP officer for these type events. An MP boat with thier flashing blue lights will go along way to insuring the safety of the kids, with no impact on use to the general public. Given the generous nature of Hi-performance boaters, you might even be able to get them to cover some of the costs.

I am sure there are few other ideas....

Woodsy

Airwaves · 02-27-2006, 11:17 PM

A summary of "The Winni Forum" draft so far...

Speed limit;

1. Speed limit of 45/25 on weekends (possible weekdays odd-even years)
2. Multiple speed limits (No speed limit on Broads- 45/25 in Bays)
3. Speed limit 45/25 within 1000' of other vessels or shore
4. Speed limit to be "Reasonable and Prudent" as determined by
Marine Patrol officer(s)
5. Creation of more NWZs in narrow congested areas.
6. Better enforcement of noise limits.

Education;

1. Proctor Safe Boating Exams only, elimination of online exams.
2. Requirement that people renting boats and PWCs show proof of having
passed a NASBLA exam.

Personnel;

1. Increase the number of Marine Patrol officers/vessels on Winni
2. Better deployment of Marine Patrol officers in high congested areas
3. Allow MP Officers the ability to do off-duty "details"

Funding;

1. Increase registration fees for boats
2. Require all vessels be registered
3. Eliminate the rebate of the state gasoline tax for boats and earmark
that money to Marine Patrol activities.

I think I summarized the ideas correctly, if not feel free to correct my interpretation. Some good ideas at compromise have been proposed. Any more thoughts?

One thing I probably should have suggested we do as well is to ask what we want to accomplish with this new law?

Limited to Winni, Enforcement, Revenue enhancement, Safety, etc.?

That would help in writing any changes to propose for consideration.

Rayhunt · 02-28-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

A summary of "The Winni Forum" draft so far...

Speed limit;

1. Speed limit of 45/25 on weekends (possible weekdays odd-even years)
2. Multiple speed limits (No speed limit on Broads- 45/25 in Bays)
3. Speed limit 45/25 within 1000' of other vessels or shore
4. Speed limit to be "Reasonable and Prudent" as determined by
Marine Patrol officer(s)
5. Creation of more NWZs in narrow congested areas.
6. Better enforcement of noise limits.

Education;

1. Proctor Safe Boating Exams only, elimination of online exams.
2. Requirement that people renting boats and PWCs show proof of having
passed a NASBLA exam.

Personnel;

1. Increase the number of Marine Patrol officers/vessels on Winni
2. Better deployment of Marine Patrol officers in high congested areas
3. Allow MP Officers the ability to do off-duty "details"

Funding;

1. Increase registration fees for boats
2. Require all vessels be registered
3. Eliminate the rebate of the state gasoline tax for boats and earmark
that money to Marine Patrol activities.

I think I summarized the ideas correctly, if not feel free to correct my interpretation. Some good ideas at compromise have been proposed. Any more thoughts?

One thing I probably should have suggested we do as well is to ask what we want to accomplish with this new law?

Limited to Winni, Enforcement, Revenue enhancement, Safety, etc.?

That would help in writing any changes to propose for consideration.

I agree with many of these points.. however without doing any calculation , it looks like an expensive list.
Why must big brother control everything we do.
I for one will not sit by idle while unfounded fear slowly eats away at our freedom and our wallets

Airwaves · 02-28-2006, 01:21 PM

Now Now Now...this thread was created to try to develop a compromise solution to the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

Please don't get off track.

Late last night when I logged in I was checking out who was reading what and a large number of "guests" were reading the HB 162 threads.

I can only assume some of them might have a temporary work address in Concord so play nice and maybe we can accomplish something.

Pollyanna

Lakegeezer · 03-01-2006, 07:44 AM

$10 bucks to go under the Weirs bridge - either way - keep down the congestion where there is a problem, and pay for a rent-a-cop to watch over Weirs bay.

Seriously, 90% of the lake doesn't have a problem 90% of the time. Some of the suggestions here are good, but others are pretty drastic solutions for a pretty isolated problem. Perhaps increasing the passage distance to 300 feet when going over 50 MPH would help those that fear a collision.

Woodsy · 03-01-2006, 10:48 AM

I really think the compromise solution is pretty simple, and it doesn't have to cost ALOT of money.

Pass HB-162 with the "Reasonable & Prudent" standard. I listed my reasons for this above. Most of the other reasons proposed are an expensive logistical nightmare. The "Reasonable & Prudent" standard will not add any additional cost to the bottom line, yet give the MP some latitude when they observe questionable behavior. Behavior that might be completely legal now, but certainly raises an eyebrow or two when it comes to "Reasonable & Prudent"

Increase boater registrations by $2.00. Require registrations for canoes, kayaks & other human powered craft $5.00 flat fee, renewable yearly, same colored registration sticker as used on boats. All monies earmarked for the Navigation fund. (this is the fund that pays for the MP)

With over 100,000 registered boats plus who knows how many canoes & kayaks, this will raise approximately an additional $250,000 yearly that can be earmarked for the Marine Patrol for more officers, better equipment and signage. Signage that will be conspicously displayed at all public launches and gas docks, reminding boaters of the 150' Safe Passage Law and BSC (Boater Safety Certificate) requirement.

Require a BSC in order to register a boat in NH. Add a check box on the back of the boat registration, that indicates that the person registering the boat has succesfully completed the Boater Safety Course and has presented the BSC at time of registration. The BSC must be presented at the time of registration. In the case of registrations done by mail, a signed form and a photcopy of the BSC should be required. Canoes, Kayaks and other Human Powered Craft will be exempt from the BSC requirement, as they are now.

Require a BSC in order to rent a boat in NH. The 20 Question rental boater "Checklist" is a joke. We require drivers licenses to rent cars, we should require a BSC to rent a boat.

Get rid of the internet option for the BSC for NH registered power boats. If you are registering the boat in NH, you should have to have successfully passed a proctored exam. Because of reprocity agreements, and in the interest of tourism, out of state boaters should be allowed the "internet option" if that is what is legal in thier home state. If thier home state does not require a BSC (like MA) then they need to have successfully passed a BSC either through the internet or proctored exam. In no case shall anyone be allowed to operate a power boat without a BSC on NH waterways unless a dire emergency exists.

The proposed revisions to the noise limit laws will give the MP an efffective, easy to administer tool to help control noise. It doesn't add any additional cost to the bottom line. Noise was a big complaint at the summer hearings.

Why have we not heard any suggestions from WinnFabs or other Pro HB-162 supporters?

Woodsy

jrc · 03-01-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really think the compromise solution is pretty simple, and it doesn't have to cost ALOT of money.

Pass HB-162 with the "Reasonable & Prudent" standard. I listed my reasons for this above. Most of the other reasons proposed are an expensive logistical nightmare. The "Reasonable & Prudent" standard will not add any additional cost to the bottom line, yet give the MP some latitude when they observe questionable behavior. Behavior that might be completely legal now, but certainly raises an eyebrow or two when it comes to "Reasonable & Prudent"
....

A lot of people have commented that "Reasonable & Prudent" is unenforcable, mainly because it is subjective. But yet we have reckless driving laws (for autos) and that seems pretty enforcable. Whenever you challenge a traffic violation, it's always your word against the police officer's, why would this by any different?

As for directing fees towards marine use. I pretty sure all the money the state collects goes into the general fund. Then the state congress (and the Governor) decides how to spend it. I don't think congress can pass a law saying that all future congresses will spend the money in a certain way. This was always brought up in the school funding from income tax arguments.

Jan · 03-01-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why have we not heard any suggestions from WinnFabs or other Pro HB-162 supporters?

Maybe because your compromise is a joke? "Reasonable & Prudent"=NO CHANGE. How about 55 or 60 instead of 45. THAT would be a compromise.

All this is just a smoke screen. It's all about a selfish need for speed.

There are many supporters out here. We're just not into bickering.

J

Seaplane Pilot · 03-01-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why have we not heard any suggestions from WinnFabs or other Pro HB-162 supporters?

Woodsy

Woodsy, it's because they want one thing and one thing only: To get rid of performance boats - period. It's not about education, it's not about speed, it's not about economics, but it is about cleansing the lake of a certain type of boat and the people that operate them. It's clear as day to me.

Woodsy · 03-01-2006, 11:58 AM

I do think the "Reasonable & Prudent" wording is a bit difficult to enforce in court, but not impossible. However, using that standard allows the MP to intercept a boat and question the operator. They may not write a ticket, but it does give them a chance to talk to the operator, see if he has his SBC, determine if he has been drinking, and conduct a safety inspection.

If you read some of what the proponents of HB-162 have written in other threads, they don't see the need for a large enforcement of the speed limit, and certainly don't want to spend the money needed for training, signage, court costs etc. In fact thier much touted Lake George only writes 5-6 speeding tickets a year, mostly to PWC's that are on-plane within 500" of the shoreline. In fact some of the HB-162 supporters seem to think that a speed limit will be self-enforcing. If thats thier position, why spend all that time & money to train MP officers in the use of radar, especially when the logistics and enforcement are questionable? I think we should spend the money where it is needed.

Actually, a portion of the boat registration fee is earmarked for the Navigation Fund. It does not go into the general fund. The Navigation Fund is where the MP get thier funding from. There is a bill in comitte right now to increase the registration fees and earmark the monies to the Navigation fund. I think a higher MP presence would be a good thing, especially on busy holiday weekends.

Woodsy

ITD · 03-01-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan

There are many supporters out here. We're just not into bickering.

J

Give me a break, read through these posts again and tell me your serious.

My problem with this thread is it seems that the "compromise" is a speed limit, that doesn't seem like a compromise at all to me. How about compromise that solves some of the issues presented, such as camp kids unable to swim from one island to another? The speed limit solves very few or none of the problems listed throughout these threads. (Wakes, noise, congestion, bad behavior, fear).

If this was really about safety the pro speed limit crowd would be a little more flexible, but they're not because it's about exclusion.

winnilaker · 03-01-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan

Maybe because your compromise is a joke? "Reasonable & Prudent"=NO CHANGE. How about 55 or 60 instead of 45. THAT would be a compromise.

Jan,
You bring up an interesting point, why not another limit for a compromise. I'm sure you have been reading the main reason for support is FEAR. Fear is a hard to thing to measure, I'm sure some feel fearful with boats going 45 and others at 65. So to compromise we need to measure the right amount of FEAR FACTOR, so the majority of supporters would be feel ok. Most of horrid stories told in testimonies describe boats going 100 mph plus. All the examples of traveling 150 ft in X.X seconds use really high speeds. Would you compromise with a speed limit of 70 mph? I would think many supporters would not.

So picking arbitrary limits might be a way to compromise, but will it achieve the goals set by the supporters.

I hope we can address the FEAR by public outreach programs and better education to the boaters whose intentially or inadvertently cause fear. Everyone wants to use the lake and if certian boaters are in fear, we need to truely understand those fears. Many fears may be discovered to be conjestion and safe passage violations while others are really afraid of boats going fast. For those who don't like other boats going fast, let's figure out a way to understand where and how those situations arise to help us all make our waters more enjoyable for all.

Woodsy · 03-01-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan

Maybe because your compromise is a joke? "Reasonable & Prudent"=NO CHANGE. How about 55 or 60 instead of 45. THAT would be a compromise.

All this is just a smoke screen. It's all about a selfish need for speed.

There are many supporters out here. We're just not into bickering.

J

Jan...

Its really not a bickering type of issue, nor is it a selfish issue. One could argue that you are being just as selfish.

To me, it boils down to 2 things, money/cost and manpower/resources and is there a more effective way to spend the money and the resources? How much money and manpower does the State of NH want to spend on HB-162?

If you assign hard numbers to the speed limit, with the provision that any offense is tagged to your driving record, then the officer who is writing the ticket has to be radar certified. This training and certification has costs associated with it. We heard testimony in the Senate Transportation Committee hearing from a current NH Law Enforcement Officer. He testified that to be certified to write a radar ticket in NH, you have to have 8 hours of classroom training and another 32 hours of actual radar use. The actual radar use is the killer, because the marine radar gun has to be stationary when in use. Thats 32 hours of an MP officer standing still operating a radar gun just to be able to write a ticket! Then there are the inevitable court costs when the alleged offender contests the speeding ticket. Thats alot of time and alot of money for a very very minimal gain. Where is this money supposed to come from? The version of HB-162 as it was passed by the House, contains no provision for funding whatsoever.

HB-162 does nothing alleviate fear, does nothing to alleviate congestion, does nothing to reduce noise, does nothing to add more MP officers, does nothing to improve the safety of the kids who want to swim to an island, does nothing to insure compliance with the BSC requirement. In fact HB-162 does absolutely nothing to eliminate the majority of complaints heard at the hearings this past summer. In short HB-162 does very little of anything.

Woodsy

Weirs guy · 03-01-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan

All this is just a smoke screen. It's all about a selfish need for speed.

And that’s different from your selfish need to feel safe how? Lets say that I wanted to propose a bill that would ban boats from Weirs Bay each Saturday so I could selfishly swim to Spindle point and back, would you have a problem with that?

Maybe you can explain to us why you support the speed limit? I’ve yet to hear a supporter answer that question, but if your support is strictly to stop us hooligans who have a selfish need for speed, then you’ve all lost my vote.

Again, I don't boat, but I do want my tax dollars spent on something that serves the greater good of the state better then making sure that the drunk guy piloting the boat that runs little Johnny over in his canoe was going slower then 45MPH.

John A. Birdsall · 03-01-2006, 04:49 PM

I can think of a compromise that will work for all. Dump the speed limit bill, subsitute it with enforcable 150' headway speed bill with the MP to do the job. Boat registrations increase by okay I don't know what amount but say $2.00 and all boats need to be registered for a minimum of $2.00 and that money stays on the lake the boats are registered on. for the cost of MP.

When a person is stopped for failure to observe the 150' rule first offense is 100.00 fine second and each subsequent is increased by 100. three tickets and he/she no longer operates a boat on the lake until they retake the boaters certificate coarse given in Concord the second week in January each year.

Airwaves · 03-01-2006, 06:14 PM

Works for me!

I'd take it a step further on the funding end and in addition to increasing fees and expanding registration, eliminate the rebate for state gasoline tax at marinas but the money has to be earmarked for use by the Marine Patrol by statute, otherwise I think it just goes into the general fund. Eliminating the rebate on the state gas tax for boat will mean transient boaters also help pay for the increased enforcement.

I think the underlying issue here is the lack of enforcement of the 150' rule, not a speed limit.

ApS · 03-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I think the underlying issue here is the lack of enforcement of the 150' rule..."

The 150' rule isn't enforced because nobody wants to enforce a rule that is violated so often by so many boaters.

It's also VAGUE. A speed limit works for Lake George because the results can be quantified, and boaters know it. Officers only have to write a few tickets a year to keep a semblance of order.

When a Jet-Ski runs through "clot" of three family boats exiting a cove, all are technically violators. Who gets cited? Nobody.

Why collect MORE money for enforcement of a vague rule that has long outlasted its usefulness?

upthesaukee · 03-01-2006, 10:43 PM

Boat gas tax is not a boat gas refund. It is a refund for virtually any non road use purchase of gasoline in this state. Farmers, homeowners with lawnmowers, etc all are eligible for the refund.

Keep the registration money, earmark a portion of it, raise it $2 per boat, whatever....but to suggest eliminating the refund for boats will end up being a logistical nightmare for the state, trying to figure out who is circumventing the law and saying their lawn tractor used 430 gallons during June, July, & August.

Leave that alone...messing with it would hurt more folks than it would help, especially those not involved with boating.

Just my humble opinion,.

APS : "A speed limit works for Lake George because the results can be quantified, and boaters know it. Officers only have to write a few tickets a year to keep a semblance of order." What enforcement there is on that lake is made simple by having more Patrol boats on the lake than we have here. Having lived an hour south of Lake George and having boated on the lake, I can tell you that there is no comparison between Lake George and Lake Winnipesaukee, in my opinion. Lake George is a very narrow lake, with no real expanse like the broads. It is more like riding on an area that is about twice as wide as Merideth Bay or Alton Bay, with islands in the middle of it. There is was then and still is plenty of speed on Lake George especially near the village end of the lake, where it is pretty much wide open. And Lake George is a state park, and unless something changed in the last few years, you pay a special Park fee to boat on the lake each year. I really do hate to see the comparisons between the two lakes, it's like trying to compare budgets and government between Laconia and Alton...apples and oranges as they say.

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Original post by upthesaukee
Keep the registration money, earmark a portion of it, raise it $2 per boat, whatever....but to suggest eliminating the refund for boats will end up being a logistical nightmare for the state, trying to figure out who is circumventing the law and saying their lawn tractor used 430 gallons during June, July, & August.

Actually what I was suggesting and I didn't articulate it clearly, is that the state gasoline tax refund be eliminated for boats, nothing else, and that money be earmarked for the Marine Patrol.

The way I would approach it is to eliminate the gas tax refund from gasoline sold only at marinas. I don't know too many people who haul their lawn tractor down to the gas dock to refuel it do you?

Yep, it would require new legislation.

Quote:

Original post by Acres per Second
The 150' rule isn't enforced because nobody wants to enforce a rule that is violated so often by so many boaters.

It's also VAGUE.

I disagree, while it may be routinely violated it is not vague.

If there is an issue with what happens when a boat is being overtaken then add language that addresses that issue.

I don't have the Colregs in front of me but I believe the stand on vessel is supposed to maintain course and SPEED and the overtaking vessel is to signal its intent using its horn and can not proceed until the vessel being overtaken agrees.

I'm not an attorney but I always thought that when there are conflicting statutes between state and federal law, federal law trumps so it really isn't necessary to re-write everything.

Woodsy · 03-02-2006, 08:20 AM

I thought this thread was about a compromise on HB-162...

APS,

You are stating that the 150' rule is archaic? Are you suggestiong we dump that rule and just go with a speed limit? I have to strongly disagree! In fact one of the reasons NH is well below the national averages in boating accidents and fatalities is because of this rule! Even if an offending boat breaks the bubble and comes within 75' of you, your safety isn't really all that compromised, especially when you compare our 150' rule to the rules of navigation elsewhere. Consider that your much touted Lake George (you know that lake you love to talk about but you don't boat on) has no such rule regarding distance between moving boats. I can go by your skiff less than 10' away with a huge wake and as long as I am not going faster than 45 its all completely legal. Of course, on Lake George if I was going faster than 45 that wouldn't be a big deal either, as they only write 5-6 speeding tickets a year and the majority of those are written to PWC's who are not allowed to be within 500' of shore while on plane. They don't actively enforce the speed limit on Lake George. I know, I boat there! I don't think there are ANY other states that have a 150' Safe Passage Law (as it pertains to moving boats) on the books.

The 150' Safe Passage law, while difficult to write a violation, is one of the key safety tenets of boating here in NH. It allows a large buffer zone between moving boats that keep them a safe distance apart. It works very well, and the proof of that is our low rate of collisions between moving boats.

Archaic? I don't think so!

To my knowledge, the only boating fatality we had last year was that kayaker who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking in a flood by himself. Nobody died from any boat on boat collisions, and the few collisions we did have occured at speeds less than the proposed 45MPH limit.

Woodsy

Lakewinniboater · 03-02-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The 150' Safe Passage law, while difficult to write a violation, is one of the key safety tenets of boating here in NH. It allows a large buffer zone between moving boats that keep them a safe distance apart. It works very well, and the proof of that is our low rate of collisions between moving boats.
Woodsy

I do believe ..... i could be wrong but I know that I have seen MANY a boater given a ticket for being less than 150'.... I myself got one. Even though I wasn't over headway. However, I didn't mind. I paid it and was happy that they are enforcing it.

Dave R · 03-02-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

If you assign hard numbers to the speed limit, with the provision that any offense is tagged to your driving record, then the officer who is writing the ticket has to be radar certified. This training and certification has costs associated with it. We heard testimony in the Senate Transportation Committee hearing from a current NH Law Enforcement Officer. He testified that to be certified to write a radar ticket in NH, you have to have 8 hours of classroom training and another 32 hours of actual radar use. The actual radar use is the killer, because the marine radar gun has to be stationary when in use. Thats 32 hours of an MP officer standing still operating a radar gun just to be able to write a ticket! Then there are the inevitable court costs when the alleged offender contests the speeding ticket. Thats alot of time and alot of money for a very very minimal gain. Where is this money supposed to come from? The version of HB-162 as it was passed by the House, contains no provision for funding whatsoever.

I keep hearing about the necessary training and added cost of buying radar guns to enforce the speed limit, so I thought I'd do a little research.

The newest Marine Patrol boats were specified to come equipped with Raymarine SL70 Pathfinder Radar displays and Raymarine Radome antennas. Near as I can tell, they do. This hardware gives the operator the ability to track speed, range, and bearing on 10 selected targets, simultaneously, up to 24 (maybe even 48) nautical miles away. The technology that allows this is called MARPA and it is vastly more accurate and effective than a handheld speed radar gun. I doubt much extra training will be required to run the radar set and there is no need at all for speed detection guns. Even at 90 MPH across the broads, they could track a target for many minutes, get a video of the target boat, and make a video of the radar screen. I would not want to fight this technology in court.

codeman671 · 03-02-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The 150' rule isn't enforced because nobody wants to enforce a rule that is violated so often by so many boaters.

It's also VAGUE. A speed limit works for Lake George because the results can be quantified, and boaters know it. Officers only have to write a few tickets a year to keep a semblance of order.

When a Jet-Ski runs through "clot" of three family boats exiting a cove, all are technically violators. Who gets cited? Nobody.

Why collect MORE money for enforcement of a vague rule that has long outlasted its usefulness?

So lets dump the 150' rule and put in place the speed limit. Do you really think that it is more dangerous for a boat to pass by at 80mph at 150' out or 45mph at 30' out?

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by codeman671
So lets dump the 150' rule and put in place the speed limit. Do you really think that it is more dangerous for a boat to pass by at 80mph at 150' out or 45mph at 30' out?

That was a joke, right????

BroadHopper · 03-02-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

So lets dump the 150' rule and put in place the speed limit. Do you really think that it is more dangerous for a boat to pass by at 80mph at 150' out or 45mph at 30' out?

That is what you see on Lake George. I think Lake George is scarier then Lake Winnipesaukee!

ApS · 03-02-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You are stating that the 150' rule is archaic? Are you suggestiong we dump that rule and just go with a speed limit?

It's archaic because the 150-foot violation can be missed in the blink of an eye at today's excessive speeds; however, nowhere did I suggest it be "dumped": It should augment the speed limit.

BTW: We all did agree that 25-MPH is a safe limit for boating in darkness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

"...And Lake George is a state park, and unless something changed in the last few years, you pay a special Park fee to boat on the lake each year. I really do hate to see the comparisons between the two lakes..."

Big deal...it's a State Park. Comparing the two doesn't make Lake Winnipesaukee chopped liver.

Lake Winnipesaukee should have been made a State Park, not an open race course for the privileged and entitled few.

codeman671 · 03-03-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

That was a joke, right????

Yes it was a joke, sorry if you did not see the sarcasm. I openly opposed to the speed limit and my history of posts (and former avatar) show that. The thought of getting rid of the 150' rule and using a speed limit instead is foolish and probably in the end considerably more dangerous. Even at lesser speeds giving boats the legal right to pass within mere feet of each other will be catastrophic.

ApS · 03-03-2006, 08:35 AM

Pass, then suspend HB-162 indefinitely.

Reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat!

No exception, no excuses:

Hit-and-run, alcohol-related, suicide, divers, water-skiing, Jet-Ski, Poker Run, sanctioned speed event, avoiding floatplane, right-of-way issue, tubing, hit-and-run—operator not located, wrinkled diver flag, no lights on struck vessel, victims under 16-years-old, dock collision, kite-boarding, drunk passengers, drunk skiers, avoiding a surfacing loon—no exceptions.

This should put most responsible boaters on eggshells: Who wants to be remembered as being the one to enable HB-162?

RegalStan2450 · 03-04-2006, 02:14 PM

I would say pass a weekend and holiday speed limit like other NH lakes have.

The one major thing I dislike about this law is the restrictions it puts on certain people. To say someone can't go fast on a lake with noone on it during the week, just doesn't make sense to me.

I would agree with the limit if it was weekend and holiday only for compromise sake.

Quick disclaimer

Again I boat mostly on the weekends and my boat only goes 50 mph so this law wouldn't even effect me . Ok 55 if I am down to 10 gallons of gas,I am alone, take out all unneeded life vests and equipment and remove my second battery

I just feel HB 162 does nothing for safety but our country was built on compromising.

02-26-2006, 05:52 PM	#1
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Let's try this compromise thing again. Just a thought, but since folks on this list have very strong opinions on both sides of this issue it might be interesting to see if we can play "Senator" and come up with a compromise. No name calling, no insults, just real ideas on how to go forward. Perhaps we should even explain our position (briefly) on why we want an item included or eliminated from the bill. For example: Mandatory Education; CG Statistics show education reduces fatalities. Who knows, if the folks on this list can reach a compromise perhaps it can be presented to lawmakers as an alternative All the best, Pollyanna

02-26-2006, 06:22 PM	#2
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	....this will never fly! How about 45day-25night speed limts on fridays, saturdays, & sundays, the three busiest days by far. GF-BL's could enjoy the much less crowded lake during monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday and it could lessen the weekend crunch and could increase overall use of the lake and tourism. To make this as fair as possible, the fri-sat-sun vs mon-tues-wed-thurs schedule could be flip-flopped every year. On even years, the GF-BL's get the weekends, and on odd years they get weekdays. By doing this yearly shift it's not like one group gets the gold mine and the other group gets the shaft.

02-26-2006, 08:10 PM	#4
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	I'll take the weekdays you want to give me. I can't stand the weekends anyway. With the congestion , crowded town docks , back ups at the Weirs channel remind me of rush hour in the city. The least of my concerns is speed. Weekdays on the lake are pure Heaven Have a lobsta and prime rib dinner at Sandy Point and cast off by 8pm in time to beat the sunset back to Naswa. And on a Wednesday night MAYBE see three other boats on the trip back. __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

02-26-2006, 08:42 PM	#5
gtxrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Piscataway, NJ Posts: 1,030 Thanks: 2 Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts	How about this Did anyone ever think of no speed limit in the broads and 45 MPH in the bays? Just a thought? Get your jollies in the wide open spaces.

02-27-2006, 02:52 PM	#8
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I think most of us agree that we would like to see an improvement in boating quality on Lake Winnipesaukee. We just loudly disagree on how to go about it. In my opinion, you cannot legislate common sense or courtesy, and no written law will eliminate "fear" either percieved or warranted. If we based our laws on fear, after 9/11 there would be no more young men of Arab descent allowed in America. I also think there is a large percentage of WinnFabs that just doesn't like hi-performance boats and they are playing the "fear" card in order to get thier way and rid the Lake of Hi-Performance boats.... so now we have thier hidden "agenda". On the other side of the fence are the "libertarians", (and I use that term in the loosest sense) such as myself, who also have an agenda, the less government interference the better off we are. I really don't see any problems on Lake Winnipesaukee that cannot be creatively solved in other ways. There is no need to restrict an individual's personal freedom when there is not any factual data to support the restriction. So how do you compromise? I think its already started. Here is my list (in no particular order) for improvements that will not require a restriction to anyone's personal freedoms... and they won't break the bank either! 1. Better funding for the Marine Patrol... Adding more patrols to some of the busier areas of the lake will work wonders in calming down bad behavior. I think there is a bill in committee to address this, and more than likely there will be an increase in boat registration fees. I would like to see canoes & kayaks registered as well... but thats just me. 2. I would pass HB-162 with the "reasonable & prudent" standard... It might be difficult, although not impossible, to issue a citation with respect to the courts. However it does provide certain tools to the MP officer. It gives the officers a "probable cause" to stop a vessel and conduct a quick inquiry and registration check. He can then have a conversation with the operator, explain the situation and let them go on thier way. It also gives the MP officer a chance to determine if the boat operator has been drinking and possibly conduct a field sobriety test. There is the added benefit of not affecting the bottom line. Radar training will be expensive... 8 hours of classroom + 32 hours of pulling the trigger on the radar gun x 15 FT MP officers = VERY EXPENSIVE. 3. An easier to enforce noise law... its already been proposed, HB-1624, and probably will sail through the legislature. Its easy to enforce and doesn't add cost to the bottom line. 4. NWZ's... I think a NWZ on the SW side of Bear Island between Meridith Neck will work well in calming that stretch of water. There are probably a few other places a strategically placed NWZ will help alleviate congestion and calm the waters. This is also an inexpensive solution. 5. Boater Education... I think tightening up of the Boater Education laws is in order. Eliminate the Internet option and require a proctored exam. I also think anyone who is renting a boat should be required to have thier SBC. We don't rent cars to people without licenses, we shouldn't rent boats to people without an SBC either! I think there is a bill being studied now, but it will be interesting to see how marina's like Fay's & Thurstons like this bill. 5. Allow the off-duty MP officers to work "details" similar to other LEO's. I am not sure if its allowed or not, but it should be allowed! I feel bad that certain camp traditions are being no longer allowed. Let the Camp Director hire an MP officer for these type events. An MP boat with thier flashing blue lights will go along way to insuring the safety of the kids, with no impact on use to the general public. Given the generous nature of Hi-performance boaters, you might even be able to get them to cover some of the costs. I am sure there are few other ideas.... Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

02-26-2006, 07:59 PM	#3
overlook Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gilford Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I do not agree, but untill some kind of study by a non bias firm can conclude that a speed over 25 at night is responsable for accidents or 45 daytimefor that matter. Weekend or not it is not the right thing to do. For the economic side, I do not see the impact from tourist to be of significance either way. I myself will most likely not be boating to dinner any more, the long ride and the wake disturbance might not be worth it. Not to mention the feul economy for traveling at 25 would be horrible. As far as the Loons are considered, I have not seen any thing that convinces me that fast boats are killing young ones. This is because I never seen them out in the open in the day where I was traveling above 45mph. In the coves I have seen them plenty of times idling around. And yes I can see them from at a good distance at above 45. I instantly change course to avoid comming near loons or any object in the water. $.02

02-26-2006, 09:32 PM	#6
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Having different speed limit for different parts of the lake is a good idea, as is having different limits during busy weekends. There are obvious places and times where even 45 mph is too fast. Practically defining these time and places in the simple text of a law is the problem. For example, what constitues a bay? What is the border of the Broads? Most bays on Winnipesaukee don't have clear delineation. Where does Wolfeboro Bay end? What constitutes a busy weekend? What if rains on the Forth of July, then can someone go fast? But maybe something like a 1000' clearance from land and other boats for speeds over 45 mph would work?

02-26-2006, 09:39 PM	#7
overlook Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gilford Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Keep in mind HB-162 is all NH waterways, Individual problems require individual solutions. 2005 there was no speed limit between Eagle and Gov.-- now there is. That was a realistic solution to a conjested problem.

02-27-2006, 11:17 PM	#9
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Here's what we have so far: A summary of "The Winni Forum" draft so far... Speed limit; 1. Speed limit of 45/25 on weekends (possible weekdays odd-even years) 2. Multiple speed limits (No speed limit on Broads- 45/25 in Bays) 3. Speed limit 45/25 within 1000' of other vessels or shore 4. Speed limit to be "Reasonable and Prudent" as determined by Marine Patrol officer(s) 5. Creation of more NWZs in narrow congested areas. 6. Better enforcement of noise limits. Education; 1. Proctor Safe Boating Exams only, elimination of online exams. 2. Requirement that people renting boats and PWCs show proof of having passed a NASBLA exam. Personnel; 1. Increase the number of Marine Patrol officers/vessels on Winni 2. Better deployment of Marine Patrol officers in high congested areas 3. Allow MP Officers the ability to do off-duty "details" Funding; 1. Increase registration fees for boats 2. Require all vessels be registered 3. Eliminate the rebate of the state gasoline tax for boats and earmark that money to Marine Patrol activities. I think I summarized the ideas correctly, if not feel free to correct my interpretation. Some good ideas at compromise have been proposed. Any more thoughts? One thing I probably should have suggested we do as well is to ask what we want to accomplish with this new law? Limited to Winni, Enforcement, Revenue enhancement, Safety, etc.? That would help in writing any changes to propose for consideration.

02-28-2006, 01:21 PM	#11
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Now Now Now...this thread was created to try to develop a compromise solution to the issue at hand in a reasonable manner. Please don't get off track. Late last night when I logged in I was checking out who was reading what and a large number of "guests" were reading the HB 162 threads. I can only assume some of them might have a temporary work address in Concord so play nice and maybe we can accomplish something. Pollyanna

03-01-2006, 07:44 AM	#12
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	How about a Weirs Bridge Toll Booth $10 bucks to go under the Weirs bridge - either way - keep down the congestion where there is a problem, and pay for a rent-a-cop to watch over Weirs bay. Seriously, 90% of the lake doesn't have a problem 90% of the time. Some of the suggestions here are good, but others are pretty drastic solutions for a pretty isolated problem. Perhaps increasing the passage distance to 300 feet when going over 50 MPH would help those that fear a collision. __________________ -lg

03-01-2006, 10:48 AM	#13
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I really think the compromise solution is pretty simple, and it doesn't have to cost ALOT of money. Pass HB-162 with the "Reasonable & Prudent" standard. I listed my reasons for this above. Most of the other reasons proposed are an expensive logistical nightmare. The "Reasonable & Prudent" standard will not add any additional cost to the bottom line, yet give the MP some latitude when they observe questionable behavior. Behavior that might be completely legal now, but certainly raises an eyebrow or two when it comes to "Reasonable & Prudent" Increase boater registrations by $2.00. Require registrations for canoes, kayaks & other human powered craft $5.00 flat fee, renewable yearly, same colored registration sticker as used on boats. All monies earmarked for the Navigation fund. (this is the fund that pays for the MP) With over 100,000 registered boats plus who knows how many canoes & kayaks, this will raise approximately an additional $250,000 yearly that can be earmarked for the Marine Patrol for more officers, better equipment and signage. Signage that will be conspicously displayed at all public launches and gas docks, reminding boaters of the 150' Safe Passage Law and BSC (Boater Safety Certificate) requirement. Require a BSC in order to register a boat in NH. Add a check box on the back of the boat registration, that indicates that the person registering the boat has succesfully completed the Boater Safety Course and has presented the BSC at time of registration. The BSC must be presented at the time of registration. In the case of registrations done by mail, a signed form and a photcopy of the BSC should be required. Canoes, Kayaks and other Human Powered Craft will be exempt from the BSC requirement, as they are now. Require a BSC in order to rent a boat in NH. The 20 Question rental boater "Checklist" is a joke. We require drivers licenses to rent cars, we should require a BSC to rent a boat. Get rid of the internet option for the BSC for NH registered power boats. If you are registering the boat in NH, you should have to have successfully passed a proctored exam. Because of reprocity agreements, and in the interest of tourism, out of state boaters should be allowed the "internet option" if that is what is legal in thier home state. If thier home state does not require a BSC (like MA) then they need to have successfully passed a BSC either through the internet or proctored exam. In no case shall anyone be allowed to operate a power boat without a BSC on NH waterways unless a dire emergency exists. The proposed revisions to the noise limit laws will give the MP an efffective, easy to administer tool to help control noise. It doesn't add any additional cost to the bottom line. Noise was a big complaint at the summer hearings. Why have we not heard any suggestions from WinnFabs or other Pro HB-162 supporters? Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-01-2006, 11:58 AM	#17
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I do think the "Reasonable & Prudent" wording is a bit difficult to enforce in court, but not impossible. However, using that standard allows the MP to intercept a boat and question the operator. They may not write a ticket, but it does give them a chance to talk to the operator, see if he has his SBC, determine if he has been drinking, and conduct a safety inspection. If you read some of what the proponents of HB-162 have written in other threads, they don't see the need for a large enforcement of the speed limit, and certainly don't want to spend the money needed for training, signage, court costs etc. In fact thier much touted Lake George only writes 5-6 speeding tickets a year, mostly to PWC's that are on-plane within 500" of the shoreline. In fact some of the HB-162 supporters seem to think that a speed limit will be self-enforcing. If thats thier position, why spend all that time & money to train MP officers in the use of radar, especially when the logistics and enforcement are questionable? I think we should spend the money where it is needed. Actually, a portion of the boat registration fee is earmarked for the Navigation Fund. It does not go into the general fund. The Navigation Fund is where the MP get thier funding from. There is a bill in comitte right now to increase the registration fees and earmark the monies to the Navigation fund. I think a higher MP presence would be a good thing, especially on busy holiday weekends. Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-01-2006, 04:49 PM	#22
John A. Birdsall Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 599 Thanks: 27 Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts	I can think of a compromise that will work for all. Dump the speed limit bill, subsitute it with enforcable 150' headway speed bill with the MP to do the job. Boat registrations increase by okay I don't know what amount but say $2.00 and all boats need to be registered for a minimum of $2.00 and that money stays on the lake the boats are registered on. for the cost of MP. When a person is stopped for failure to observe the 150' rule first offense is 100.00 fine second and each subsequent is increased by 100. three tickets and he/she no longer operates a boat on the lake until they retake the boaters certificate coarse given in Concord the second week in January each year.

03-01-2006, 06:14 PM	#23
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Works for me! I'd take it a step further on the funding end and in addition to increasing fees and expanding registration, eliminate the rebate for state gasoline tax at marinas but the money has to be earmarked for use by the Marine Patrol by statute, otherwise I think it just goes into the general fund. Eliminating the rebate on the state gas tax for boat will mean transient boaters also help pay for the increased enforcement. I think the underlying issue here is the lack of enforcement of the 150' rule, not a speed limit.

03-01-2006, 10:43 PM	#25
upthesaukee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alton Bay Posts: 5,547 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 2,397 Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,061 Posts	Boat Gas Tax Boat gas tax is not a boat gas refund. It is a refund for virtually any non road use purchase of gasoline in this state. Farmers, homeowners with lawnmowers, etc all are eligible for the refund. Keep the registration money, earmark a portion of it, raise it $2 per boat, whatever....but to suggest eliminating the refund for boats will end up being a logistical nightmare for the state, trying to figure out who is circumventing the law and saying their lawn tractor used 430 gallons during June, July, & August. Leave that alone...messing with it would hurt more folks than it would help, especially those not involved with boating. Just my humble opinion,. APS : "A speed limit works for Lake George because the results can be quantified, and boaters know it. Officers only have to write a few tickets a year to keep a semblance of order." What enforcement there is on that lake is made simple by having more Patrol boats on the lake than we have here. Having lived an hour south of Lake George and having boated on the lake, I can tell you that there is no comparison between Lake George and Lake Winnipesaukee, in my opinion. Lake George is a very narrow lake, with no real expanse like the broads. It is more like riding on an area that is about twice as wide as Merideth Bay or Alton Bay, with islands in the middle of it. There is was then and still is plenty of speed on Lake George especially near the village end of the lake, where it is pretty much wide open. And Lake George is a state park, and unless something changed in the last few years, you pay a special Park fee to boat on the lake each year. I really do hate to see the comparisons between the two lakes, it's like trying to compare budgets and government between Laconia and Alton...apples and oranges as they say. __________________ I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!

03-02-2006, 08:20 AM	#27
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I thought this thread was about a compromise on HB-162... APS, You are stating that the 150' rule is archaic? Are you suggestiong we dump that rule and just go with a speed limit? I have to strongly disagree! In fact one of the reasons NH is well below the national averages in boating accidents and fatalities is because of this rule! Even if an offending boat breaks the bubble and comes within 75' of you, your safety isn't really all that compromised, especially when you compare our 150' rule to the rules of navigation elsewhere. Consider that your much touted Lake George (you know that lake you love to talk about but you don't boat on) has no such rule regarding distance between moving boats. I can go by your skiff less than 10' away with a huge wake and as long as I am not going faster than 45 its all completely legal. Of course, on Lake George if I was going faster than 45 that wouldn't be a big deal either, as they only write 5-6 speeding tickets a year and the majority of those are written to PWC's who are not allowed to be within 500' of shore while on plane. They don't actively enforce the speed limit on Lake George. I know, I boat there! I don't think there are ANY other states that have a 150' Safe Passage Law (as it pertains to moving boats) on the books. The 150' Safe Passage law, while difficult to write a violation, is one of the key safety tenets of boating here in NH. It allows a large buffer zone between moving boats that keep them a safe distance apart. It works very well, and the proof of that is our low rate of collisions between moving boats. Archaic? I don't think so! To my knowledge, the only boating fatality we had last year was that kayaker who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking in a flood by himself. Nobody died from any boat on boat collisions, and the few collisions we did have occured at speeds less than the proposed 45MPH limit. Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. Last edited by Woodsy; 03-02-2006 at 09:42 AM.

03-03-2006, 08:35 AM	#35
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,788 Thanks: 2,084 Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts	Want a compromise??? Probation! Pass, then suspend HB-162 indefinitely. *Reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality* attributable to a powerboat! No exception, no excuses: Hit-and-run, alcohol-related, suicide, divers, water-skiing, Jet-Ski, Poker Run, sanctioned speed event, avoiding floatplane, right-of-way issue, tubing, hit-and-run—operator not located, wrinkled diver flag, no lights on struck vessel, victims under 16-years-old, dock collision, kite-boarding, drunk passengers, drunk skiers, avoiding a surfacing loon—no exceptions.** This should put most responsible boaters on eggshells: Who wants to be remembered as being the one to enable HB-162?

03-04-2006, 02:14 PM	#36
RegalStan2450 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I would say pass a weekend and holiday speed limit like other NH lakes have. The one major thing I dislike about this law is the restrictions it puts on certain people. To say someone can't go fast on a lake with noone on it during the week, just doesn't make sense to me. I would agree with the limit if it was weekend and holiday only for compromise sake. Quick disclaimer Again I boat mostly on the weekends and my boat only goes 50 mph so this law wouldn't even effect me . Ok 55 if I am down to 10 gallons of gas,I am alone, take out all unneeded life vests and equipment and remove my second battery I just feel HB 162 does nothing for safety but our country was built on compromising.