Speed Limit test zones dead in the water! - Page 3

Islander · 08-27-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

I'm afraid she may have you here ITD. One of the elements the Director would need to clearly articulate in a Libel case would be proof that the accuser had enough credibility within the community to inflict harm. IMHO not sure if that would be the case here.....

If I may be of assistance, I think you answered this very question in an earlier post of yours:

Don't bother thanking me, just trying to help!

Skip

And Skip don't forget, it also must be false!

But thanks for the reminder about how nice they are, however I just called the MP and they don't have any data available for release.

ITD - Where did you get this data? You claim to know for a fact that the data doesn't support speed limits. I am trying to keep an open mind about the data (it's not easy) so I want to go over it.

Or did you just make up the entire thing?

ITD · 08-27-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

......and they don't have any data available for release......

ITD - Where did you get this data? You claim to know for a fact that the data doesn't support speed limits. I am trying to keep an open mind about the data (it's not easy) so I want to go over it.

Or did you just make up the entire thing?

Come on Islander, I'm sure that's the last thing you want is for the MP to release the results of their tests. Since you have a selective memory I will put the post here again for you. The "data" clearly exists and is referenced by the guy you are working diligently to discredit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

From the Concord Monitor Article

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic," he said. (Marine Patrol Director David Barrett)

From the Citizen Article http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN

"One thing he (Barrett) is confident in is that many unexperienced boaters who are viewing vessels from shore, are likely believing boats are going faster than they are."

This whole issue is a sham, we are going to end up with a law that isn't necessary. Stop this madness legislators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

That you think my statements constitute libel only proves that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Look it up.

Looked it up, yep, it applies. Slander might work a little better though.

In case you forgot what you posted, here's a gem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

I hope this doesn't effect any of those big money jobs in the boating industry he has been preparing for.

Where's your data for that statement? Pretty strong accusation of a public employee. S-L-A-N-D-E-R, L-I-B-E-L

overlook · 08-27-2007, 06:13 PM

If I remember correctly the test zone idea was generated as a result from the September 25, 2006 Meredith gathering. Not from the proposed HB-847.

The data collected was published through local media. From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph. Readings were taken from several locations and not just within the proposed test areas. Another conclusion is that boats observed were thought to be traveling faster than they actually were. The actual number of radar hits was not stated, though the observation has been most of the boating season.
This is what I have read so far.
It is clear to me that people who do not know what speed really is like (observation) assume that boats are constantly going over 45 where in fact they are most likely traveling much slower.

When I was ten years old I thought the family boat ( 16' Thompson/ 40hp Scottatwater) could go 60mph. It actually could only muster 22-25mph.

As I grew older I got accustom to what speed is, Too bad others are not, especially RENTERS.

Islander: Just so you know the fastest I have been on the water was 140mph. It was a 17' tunnel with 300 hp. So your next agenda to limit hp and size will come up to that logic.

Mee-n-Mac · 08-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

I do not know the speed of the boats involved. I don't think it matters all that much. The two fatalities in Maine obviously involved high speed, the exact numbers are not important.

Two separate PWC accidents killed two teenagers and badly injured two more. Again I don't know the speeds, but teenagers going fast on a PWC is not unusual. And a crash at low speeds is not as likely to kill.

However the real benefit of a speed limit will be that less people will be putting high speed craft on the lakes of New Hampshire. When the speed limit passes families will purchase fewer PWC's. Some teenagers might even be forced to move from a PWC to a kayak.

A popular movie once quoted "if you build it, they will come". I would paraphrase that to "if you don't buy it, they can't ride it" or even "if you don't buy it, they can't be killed on it".

Actually I tend to think that any speed limit will have a zero to positive effect on the numbers of PWCs on Winni. Let's say people forgoe the big fast boats for "lesser" craft, what do you expect they'll be ? Frankly I'd expect them to be PWCs as they're relatively cheap bang for the buck. Gas prices will drive their sales more than any SL. Anybody know what the RCS of a typical PWC is ?

Again if the purpose of the speed limit is to reduce the "high speed" boat collisions, I don't see why you're mentioning accidents where such collisions didn't occur and you don't even know the speeds involved. For you I guess it is all about ridding the lake of those people you deem undesirable.

Gavia immer · 08-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by overlook

From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph.

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

Islander · 08-27-2007, 08:28 PM

ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!!

You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett?

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic,"

Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot".

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

codeman671 · 08-27-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

Barrett's background is in law enforcement, not the boating industry. Unless you have some proof that he is lobbying for a job in the boating industry you are making false claims (certainly not unlike you

) and should move on. Who cares if he is??? He has a right to work when at some point he does leave MP. He has a pretty big job to fill and i do not think he is doing a bad job. He deals with hundreds of bodies of water, he deals with constantly changing help, he deals with thousands of boaters and one island full of whiners. Give the guy a rest and let him do it! If you think that you can do better go file an application...

If you would really like to know what his plans are after MP I'll ask! I don't expect it to matter anyhow because no matter what he says you will discount it and crap on him.

Airwaves · 08-27-2007, 09:49 PM

Here are some definitions without all the legalize.

The following partial definitions are taken from
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...efamation.html

Quote:

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Public Figures:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

ITD · 08-28-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!!

You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett?

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic,"

Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot".

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

I feel like I am in bizarro world when I read your posts. So let's use your logic on your statements. According to you, since there is no published data on speed then there is absolutely no need for a speed limit because there is no proof that boats are speeding. If we need proof that boats aren't speeding, then we should have proof that boats are speeding before we legislate a major change in the law and how the lake is patrolled. There have been no deaths on Winnipesaukee attributed to speed in years, if ever, so there is no need for a speed limit. Your case is beyond weak, it is non-existant. Just applying your train of thought.

"And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true", just the fact that you try to destroy someone's character based on this line shows that anything you write is suspect, how about just sticking to the truth instead of your twisted "beliefs", honestly, I'm not sure you can tell the difference.

Dave R · 08-28-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

To use your logic, one could say: "A study was performed for the month of July and revealed that not a single canoe was seen going accross the broads. Therefore, we've deemed it illegal for canoes to be in broads".

Just becuase people tend not to go terribly fast in boats is no reason to limit them if they want to and can do it safely (history has shown they can).

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

ApS · 08-28-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

"...BoaterEd is a club of people talking about boats, it's education is answering questions posted on the wesite. A worthy effort but hardly in the same class as BoatUS..."

It's like here, but bog-slow and for cruiser captains.

I read today a current topic on how cautious they are around the many unlighted boats in their various after-dark cruising environments.

They don't have naked Brattleboro kayakers—the cruisers all have radar and it's far worse for them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

"...I'm a member as well. If Les has an opinion on Winnipesaukee speed limits, why doesn't he log on here and make it known? Your out of context quote doesn't convince me..."

Les already moderates at least two forums and manages a related business.

He stepped into BoaterEd's Winnipesaukee speed topic in 2005. My brief summary appears HERE.

And from our own archive in full, HERE.

Minus the map of Lake Winnipesaukee which heads his post, I've quoted Les' entire post below:

Quote:

"Has any one here actually looked at a map of the lake?

"At best there's a nine or ten mile stretch down the middle. At 75, that's a good six minute ride. As most of you know, I'm very much opposed to additional marine regulation. However, just because of the sheer numbers and varieties of boats on inland waters, sometimes a quantifiable limit is a good idea.

"Operating to endanger" is far too subjective and, without a speed limit, virtually unenforcable. Florida has a 25 MPH speed limit on long stretches of the ICW that seems to work well. New Hampshire as a 55 MPH limit on long stretches of I93, as well as minimum speed limits, where all of the vehicles on the road have been inspected and are capable of reaching that speed.

"In my opinion, it would be far better to impose a reasonable speed limit now than wait until a couple of kids in a kayak are killed by someone doing 80 on the lake. Then you'll have the public screaming for a much reduced limit.

"There's an ocean not an hour's drive from the lake. That's a great place to run a boat at 75."

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Sounds sensible, huh?

MAINLANDER · 08-28-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

Are you kidding?
A rational thinking person would deduct that if the MP's didn't write any tickets (and no they will not ticket for 1 mph over limit as boat speedos are usually far from accurate) Than there is NO SPEEDING PROBLEM on the lake therfore there is no need for an additional law that would do nothing but pull valuable MP resources away from FAR more serious problems such as safe passage and alcohol based violations. Oh yeaa, and drunk naked kyackers, which apparently we do have a problem with.

winnilaker · 08-28-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Even the organized anti speed limit crowd have given up. Where is NHRBA? Gone from this argument.

http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb847/testimonials.htm

... more and more as each day passes!

bbarrell · 08-28-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

This supports the fact there is no need for a speed limit. And since I pay taxes in 2 NH towns....I REALLY don't want anymore of my money wasted on this effort! There are waaayyyy more important things to worry about in NH and I want my tax dollars and lawmakers efforts going towards those. This bill is unfounded and UNFUNDED. Money will fly out of your pockets to pay for it if it passes. Also, instead of marine patrol doing their jobs looking out for intoxicated drivers and helping boaters in need....they will be sitting in coves with radar guns. It's ridiculous. And of course you're right, it's some of my freedom being taken away....but there's more at stake here than that.

I really don't understand the supporters. The whole test pilot was a result of their request in a Meredith hearing when they petioned the DOS for a speed limit. Then because it wasn't going their way they bag on the pilot and call it a joke? And you also are now complaining about people actually slowing down so they can't be caught by radar???? Isn't that what you wanted, for people to slow down?

I'm picking up the phone to call my local reps again today to tell them how mad I am that time and money is still being wasted on this useless battle. We don't need a speed limit.

Gavia immer · 08-28-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

KonaChick · 08-28-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

Rattlesnake Guy · 08-28-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

Now that you mention it….

Actually the founding fathers were most concerned about maintaining the “most” unpopular rights. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular speech for it does not need protection. It is meant to protect your speech in this discussion. I think you would find old Ben to be quite squarely against your position to limit the rights of a small group.

Benjamin Franklin wrote
Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

Dave R · 08-29-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

Dave R · 08-29-2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

codeman671 · 08-29-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

KonaChick · 08-29-2007, 09:20 AM

[QUOTE=Dave R]Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.[/QUO

Yes I would agree there are injuries from operating too fast for conditions on the lake in bow riders. In fact we've had a few ourselves when we were newbie boaters. A speed limit will NOT stop that...you can dictate the law but you can't dictate common sense. I was specifically referring to the video of the GFBL boat's racing at high speeds across the ocean. I've yet to see that happen here but I understand the broader meaning of the video and how it relates to us boats on Lake Winni. I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

Dave R · 08-29-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

Not that I'm aware of. Those boats handle typical Winni chop with ease and I rarely see more than 2 together.

Islander · 08-29-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

What law are you referring to?

Skip · 08-29-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

What law are you referring to?

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Dave R · 08-29-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

What law are you referring to?

Skip beat me to it.

ApS · 08-29-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kona Chick

"...Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it..."

If you're in a sailboat, you'll have the perspective to see that it's pretty common—especially on weekends.

They often observe the "Safe Passage" rule—so they're racing—but "legally".

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead...Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds...The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

1) The boat was "in a collision with itself", which wouldn't have happened going at a reasonable speed.

2) If it's "we can't see kayaks", can speeders also not see waves?

3) The boat is built to take it "at those speeds", but people aren't. The video shows that the boat wasn't "almost stopped", but still traveling fast—thankfully for the passengers. (And thankfully there's a video to demonstrate the bone-breaking physics at work at extreme boat speeds).

4) Remember that New Hampshire only requires Marine Patrol reports within 24-hours of a fatality and don't require any report of property damage under $2000. (A recent change from just $500, which statistically improves New Hampshire's widely-touted 2005 Coast Guard statistics for boating accident safety).

5) Because of a lack of requirements regarding injuries, there's no consistent way to determine how often "falls in boat" will appear in Coast Guard statistics. Most boaters would just transport injured parties to an Emergency Room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Benjamin Franklin wrote
"Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty."

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

That title page statement includes the phase "essential liberties".

Rocketing along at 70+MPH isn't an essential liberty.

Although the "unlimited speeds crowd" is willing to give up their liberty to go fast:

Quote:

"I wouldn't mind speed limits in several portions of the lake where you can't go fast anyway."

Islander · 08-29-2007, 11:40 AM

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!

And to think I am the one accused of spin!

Seaplane Pilot · 08-29-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!

And to think I am the one accused of spin!

If the law enforcement agent considers the boater's speed "careless and negligent", then he can stop the boater and issue a citation. See - the law already exists to cite speed if it is careless and negligent. WE NEED NO MORE LAWS (or taxes)!

Skip · 08-29-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!

And to think I am the one accused of spin!

As my grandfather used to say... "Oblivious to the obvious".

Islander · 08-29-2007, 01:07 PM

270:29-a is a "catch-all" If a MP officer was foolish enough to use it to charge a boater with speeding, the defense would be simple. "You honor, The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat. The officer has exceeded his authority and replaced the legislatures judgment with his own!"

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike61965

"What happened to the speed limit test? I've been avoiding those two test zones like everyone suggested - Going extra slow when I had to use the Bear channel a couple of times to visit a buddy. But I'm constantly seeing patrol boats out in the open water in other parts of the lake pointing radar guns around this year. What's the deal with that?
For instance, I was out last weekend for an early run before the lake kicked up. Way up ahead, near Round Island (no where near the test areas) I see a boat with a big "MARINE PATROL" on the side and a cop standing in it pointing a radar gun at me. What do they expect me to do? I knew I was way too far away for him to get a reading, so I just slowed down. We waved and smiled to each other as I passed him at about 35. His grin was bigger than mine. What a joke. They might as well have their blue lights flashing. It's pretty clear that they want us to see them and slow down. I guess, in a sense, it works just like when they leave unoccuped cruisers on the sides of the road, as it got me to slow down. I have to admit I have been going a lot slower this summer when I'm on Winnipesaukee, knowing that the radar guns are everywhere. Bu this is getting old. Will we be able to start having fun again next year? When do all these summer cops go back to their real jobs?"

jrc · 08-29-2007, 01:26 PM

Islander, you're pretending right?

Islander · 08-29-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Islander, you're pretending right?

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

Irrigation Guy · 08-29-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

You forgot to mention your source for this information was not winni.com, but I'm sure you prefer others think it was from here.

jeffk · 08-29-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

We were out riding recently in our 22 ft bow rider. We were in the broads traveling about 25 – 30 MPH. The chop was moderate to light. I caught a single rouge wave and it threw us up and dropped us down. My wife, riding in the bow, got slammed hard and was sore for a couple of days. I usually see these coming and slow down but I missed this one. It can happen to anyone unless you decide to travel everywhere at headway speed.

The guy in the video was being a hot dog. He pushed his luck and it ran out. Unfortunately his passengers also paid the price. Is there anything wrong in hot dogging per say? Most of the moments in sports or history that we celebrate (and relish) probably involved some pushing of the envelope. Sometime this is done for a good cause, sometimes just for fun. Explorers set off into an unknown ocean to discover foreign lands. More explorers roamed this country, poking into every nook and cranny. Families traveled West through mountains, deserts, and Indian attacks to reach new homes. We invented jets and some crazy people were the first to test pilot them. We landed on the moon. Firemen rush into burning buildings. Policemen face down armed criminals. An outfielder slams into a wall to catch a fly ball. We climb mountains. We sky dive, scuba dive, ski (water and snow), and race horses. We ride roller coasters, really big and crazy ones. We have Iron Man competitions that would grind most average people into jello. I took a teenager for a tube ride and snapped around a turn and he flew off. I was worried if he was OK. He gave me a huge grin and asked if we could go faster. Aren’t these all forms of hot dogging? For every one of these endeavors people have died or been seriously injured from time to time. Yet most people either participate in some of these activities or live vicariously through the participation of others.

The boat driver in the video decided to take others along for his ride. He was cited for “operating at an unsafe speed for the conditions”. This is a great 20/20 hindsight citation, as some boating laws are. If you had asked boaters or authorities in the area what the “safe” speed was before the accident I doubt you would have gotten a consistent answer. The reason his speed was “unsafe” was because something bad happened. Therefore it must have been unsafe. Were his passengers avid power boaters that understood the risks? I don’t know? If they were then they willingly participated in a risky ride. Even so, if he was careless, as it appears he was, he exposed them to more risk than they expected. Had they ridden with him before and knew he was a hot shot? Well…. If I go for a ride in your car and your tires are going bald or your brakes are shot you are exposing me to more risk than I expect as well. Maybe you didn’t sleep well last night and you’re not as alert as you should be. It would be wonderful if these things didn’t happen to those along for the ride but they do; sometimes because of negligence and carelessness, sometimes because of bad luck. When people are negligent or careless they should be prosecuted.

What level of risk are you willing to accept? If you require high levels of safety you better not get into a car (40,000 deaths a year in the US) or most other forms of motorized transport. Airplanes are the safest forms of transport but some do crash, usually with 100% fatality. Bicycle riding results in some nasty falls. Even walking, especially in the winter, can lead to serious injury and even death. Shoveling snow can lead to heart attacks. Do you go out when it is about to rain? Better hope you don’t get hit by a bolt out of the blue that can hit 10 miles from a storm center. Do you worry about electrocution when you use electrical appliances? Watch out for skin cancer from being out in the sun. There are hurricanes on the coast, tornadoes in the Midwest, blizzards in the north, and severe thunderstorms and flooding almost everywhere. In 2003, 35.000 people died in Europe because of a heat wave. There are insect borne fatal illnesses, tainted food, sexual predators, and internet identity thieves. My God, I am terrified to get out of bed in the morning. But then I need to worry about obesity and blood clots from being sedentary. And, and, and, …

You know, the problem is that life is risky. The solution is to realize that the likelihood of being a serious victim of any of these risks, including being in a boating accident, is very small. Take reasonable steps to carry out your activities safely, like having your lights on while boating at night, and Get On With Your Life.

Irrigation Guy · 08-29-2007, 02:06 PM

Jeff, very well put.

Lets not forget Islander, of WINFABS fame, freely admits she would choose a higher speed than the 45 mph proposed limit, as she has a boat capable of 60mph+ and regularly travels at those speeds on this lake.

Therefore she must consider that speed safe, due to the fact that she operates regularly at that speed in her own boat willingly and by her own admission.

Skip · 08-29-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islaner

...The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

...Islander, you're pretending right?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

...you can't make up stuff that good!...

Well jrc, she could be right. Legislative intent can be the affirmative defense employed by a savvy defense attorney.

Unfortunately Islander has a fatal flaw in her latest legal rambling. In order to offer the theory she espouses, the record surrounding the debate of the House Bill that was defeated would clearly need to articulate that the Legislature clearly stated the there be "no limit on the speed of a boat". Additionally the Attorney would need to offer into proof, either by deposition or direct testimony, a significant number of the legislators present voting down the Bill clearly stating that their intent, whether implied or not, was to allow unfettered speeding on New Hampshire waterways.

The record is available on-line, we should anxiously await Islander's direct quotations of pertinent legislative testimony that confirms her theory.

Remember, Islander used the phrase "clear legislative intent" in her latest diatribe. Clearly she can easily reference us to the source that verifies such a bold legal claim!

jrc · 08-29-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

Islander · 08-29-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.

But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

KonaChick · 08-29-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.

But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

I feel Mike is lucky to own a formula!

Gilligan · 08-29-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I'm not sure responding to the "we need speed" crowd is worth the trouble anymore.

"I still believe a statute is going to pass," said Barrett.

I try to stay out of this thread but I am against more speed limits on the lake.

I am not a member of a "we need speed" crowd. To make such a statement shows your obvious bias. Are you trying to persuade people that anti-speed limit means we want lots of speed? There are more choices and opinions.

jrc · 08-29-2007, 06:04 PM

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

Islander · 08-29-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

For once I must agree with you!

This thread is about test zones. And as Mike61965 has pointed so eloquently, they are a joke!

I declare victory!

Mike - The LRGH can get that bullet out of your foot.

Skip · 08-29-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

...I declare victory!...

Boy did I get a good chuckle out of that line!

Many years ago when it had become apparent to all (but a handful) that the war in Vietnam had been lost, a then Republican Senator from Vermont named George Aiken advised Lyndon Johnson and subsequently Richard Nixon to retreat by boldly stating "declare victory, and then get out".

You aren't related to the good Senator by any chance?

Airwaves · 08-29-2007, 07:14 PM

Islander wrote:

Quote:

I declare victory!

Mr. President! I thought it was your father that owned the boat!

Islander · 08-29-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

Boy did I get a good chuckle out of that line!

Many years ago when it had become apparent to all (but a handful) that the war in Vietnam had been lost, a then Republican Senator from Vermont named George Aiken advised Lyndon Johnson and subsequently Richard Nixon to retreat by boldly stating "declare victory, and then get out".

You aren't related to the good Senator by any chance?

I'm sorry to say I am not. It sounds like he gave great advice!

See you at ForumFest!

Skip · 08-29-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

...See you at ForumFest!...

You're the main reason I'll be there!

Cal · 08-29-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

You're the main reason I'll be there!

I wish I could make the Forum Fest. I would volunteer a ride for Islander , from whatever island she's on to Wolfeboro. Only stipulation is I cover the speedo and GPS.
I think she might be surprized

Dave R · 08-30-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.

VitaBene · 08-30-2007, 08:16 AM

DaveR, you are right on with the 150' rule. The funny thing is the people I was scared to have within 150' of me last year either don't know there is a rule this year or have chosen to ignore it!

See you on the lake!

Lakegeezer · 08-30-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.

Agreed. The law is OK, but often it provides a rule of courtesy more than addressing a safety issue. It can increase safety risk too. Forcing similar sized boats to come off wake and back on again creates more wake for kayaks and canoes, increasing the chances they will be swamped - even 150 feet away. But, with the hypersensitive attitude on the lake these days, its best to keep your distance.

Bear Islander · 08-30-2007, 08:37 AM

I have a test zone detector.

This summer I noticed my depth finder alarm going off in deep water. Then I discovered it was the Marine Patrol's radar that was setting off the alarm on the depth finder. I checked it out on a test zone last week. He points the gun at my boat, the alarm sounds.

This test zone data may give them information on how to use radar on the water but I don't see it makes a difference to the speed limit debate. I don't see that numbers change the central argument.

The age when children are required to wear a PFD changed from 5 to 12. I assume this was done because the legislature felt 12 was a more appropriate age than 5. How many 5 to 12 year olds were already wearing PFD's doesn't change the argument much. The issue was setting an appropriate standard. I hope the legislature does that again when they consider speed limits.

ITD · 08-30-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

........... "declare victory, and then get out"..............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

........... It sounds like he gave great advice!.............

You've followed the first part of the advice, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE follow the last part.

Islander · 08-30-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

You've followed the first part of the advice, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE follow the last part.

Shall I also stay away from ForumFest?

Asking someone to leave the forum is inappropriate. Even if you put a smiley face at the end.

Dave R · 08-30-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This test zone data may give them information on how to use radar on the water but I don't see it makes a difference to the speed limit debate. I don't see that numbers change the central argument.

The age when children are required to wear a PFD changed from 5 to 12. I assume this was done because the legislature felt 12 was a more appropriate age than 5. How many 5 to 12 year olds were already wearing PFD's doesn't change the argument much. The issue was setting an appropriate standard. I hope the legislature does that again when they consider speed limits.

Sadly, I imagine there's plenty of "accidental drowning while swimming from a boat" data in the 5-12 year old range in NH. Assuming the data exists, and my gut says it does (just watch the news), I doubt that voting for a higher PFD age was a tough decision to make.

It's the utter lack of high-speed boat accident data in NH that makes the speed limit argument so tough for me to back. If there was a problem, I'd be for better enforcement of exsisting laws, and maybe a speed limit if it could really be enforced. In my opinion, the proposed speed limit is a "solution" in search of a problem.

That said, If the MP can't find any boats going at high speeds when it's perfectly legal to do so, what makes you think they'll be able to when it's illegal? Maybe the folks who said handheld radar would not work adequately on water were indeed right... I always figured it was just an excuse, but maybe not.

If you get your way, we will have a useless law and could very well have no reasonable way to enforce it in all but the most blatent instances. It would be like current speed limits on back roads and sport motorcycles. The smart police don't even bother to try to enforce them, because they know they have almost no chance of ever keeping up with a moderately well-ridden sport bike, they just radio ahead and hope for some good luck. The dumb police crash trying to keep up. The reality is, if you have the skills and wish to ride really fast on a sport bike, you can pretty much do so at will on back roads.

Seems to me, that if you have a boat that goes really fast, you can do so at will in the right areas, without any chance of getting caught. That's how it works in MA, where they've had speed limts for years and GFBL boats traveling at well over 45 MPH are quite common. I bet Lake George is the same way...

You may think a speed limit will rid the state of fast boats, it won't. Go to any decent-sized body of water in MA if you don't believe me. Even the smaller lakes have stupendously fast bass boats.

ITD · 08-30-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Shall I also stay away from ForumFest?

Asking someone to leave the forum is inappropriate. Even if you put a smiley face at the end.

Honestly , I don't care what you do. Once again you twist and misconstrue, it's your trademark. Trust me, if I wanted you to leave I would have no problem saying it to you in words even you wouldn't be able to misunderstand. Here's another smiley face for you.

Just in case you forgot as you steer us down this road, there is no need for a speed limit, you have no case so your side had to resort to hiring a professional entity to try to make a case. The tests, requested by your side at a Meredith meeting showed that there is not a speed problem on the lake. A speed limit will take valuable resources now dedicated to safety enforcement and relegate those resources to sitting in a hiding spot trying to find the miniscule percentage of boaters that boat over 45 mph. Meanwhile, should you be successful, I predict that the death rate on the lake, which is very low, will actually increase, because of the diversion of MP from meaningful tasks. All of this because you want to turn Lake Winni into some "On Golden Pond" image that exists in your imagination. There are several scenes in that movie of an old "speedboat" that I'm sure had they been filmed in front of your place you would have sworn they were going 90 mph.

So, do I want you to go away, no, do I want your agenda to go away, absolutely.

GWC... · 08-30-2007, 11:38 AM

The white flag flies at the FF.

It's a day for all to enjoy - just one rule - no heated topics are to be discussed...

Oops, two rules - kayaks are welcome, too;
but occupants must not be nekked - must keep Weirs guy happy.

Bear Islander · 08-30-2007, 01:12 PM

Dave R - You make some good points. But what makes me believe in speed limits is reports from other lakes that have enacted them.

You bring up Lake George. Lt Sneider runs the Marine Patrol there and thinks speed limits have helped their lake. Here is a link to a citizen article on Lake George.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN

I know Winnipesaukee is not Lake George, but if it can help there, it can help here. At least that is the way I see it.

pm203 · 08-30-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dave R - You make some good points. But what makes me believe in speed limits is reports from other lakes that have enacted them.

You bring up Lake George. Lt Sneider runs the Marine Patrol there and thinks speed limits have helped their lake. Here is a link to a citizen article on Lake George.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN

I know Winnipesaukee is not Lake George, but if it can help there, it can help here. At least that is the way I see it.

I have friends that boat on lake George. They tell me that they can go whatever speed they want and that the speed limit law is unenforceable. Unless you are going 80 mph 100 feet from shore, blatantly breaking the law, you will not be bothered.

BroadHopper · 08-30-2007, 03:11 PM

It may be true that the GFBL crowd may not want speed limits. But I don't have a GFBL boat. Unless you want to call a Mastercraft ski boat a GFBL boat. If that is the case, we have outlawed the Abenaki ski club!
My point is, why 45 mph? There are a number of barefoot skiers that will tell you that they can't ski comfortably at 45. I can ski comfortably at 52 mph. You are not only 'discriminating' the GFBL crowd, you are discriminating the barefooot skiers! I will be happy to support a 55 mph limit, but I am totally against 45.
Now that Islander has mentioned an agenda against most boats by imposing a horsepower limit as well as a boat length limit. I can see where a lot of people that can not go that fast is coming from. We need to prevent the speed limits people from gaining an inch. I can see we are up to a lot of discrimination against boaters when they go the mile.
Islander, you can't tell me what 'discrimination' is. I've been profound hard-of-hearing since birth. Believe me! I know what discrimination is!
'Don't tread on me!'

jeffk · 08-30-2007, 03:54 PM

The following link is to the Lake George Park commission 2006 Annual report.
http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/pdf/2006...l%20Report.pdf

The report states at least a couple of speed related items.
There was a poker run in October 2006 and 6 boats were running side by side in excess of 70 MPH, the fastest at 83 MPH. These people were ticketed (5 tickets). There is no further breakdown for non PWC speeding tickets (nor were any mention in last years report).

PWC tickets are broken down into categories. For 2005 and 2006 NO PWC speeding tickets were issued for speeds in excess of 45 MPH. All PWC speed tickets were for no wake speed violations. The previous report also showed no PWC fast speeding tickets issued for 2004 either. No PWC has been been ticketed for over 45 MPH for the past 3 years.

In other statements I have seen online, patrol personnel have stated that they focus on noise more than speed and that speed enforcement is NOT a primary focus.

From a previous forum post:
WeirsBeachBoater01-07-2006, 05:32 PM
From: Lt. Joseph Schneider
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Info request
The speed limit on LG is only one regulation of a comprehensive set of regulations passed in 1988 on Lake George when the NYS Legislature recognized the need for additional protection of the unique resource that is Lake George. LGPC regulations were promulgated regarding public safety, resource protection, docks and moorings, and special navigation issues such as overcrowding, vessel noise, PWC operation, and more; as such it is impossible to say what the effect of just the speed limit has been.
Lt. J.H. Schneider
Director of Law Enforcement
Lake George Park Commission
PO Box 749
Lake George, NY 12834

So the head of the patrol stated that he thinks speed limits have helped. What is he supposed to say "Well. we ticket people in no wake zones but in the middle of the lake it's a free-for-all and we don't pay much attention there"? If speeding was a focus they would publish the non PWC speeding ticket statistics. They probably don't for a good reason and their public statements played down speed enforcement until 6 BOZOS were so blatant that they couldn't possibly be ignored. They would have probably been ticketed on Winnipesaukee for reckless behavior.

People wanted to feel better about the safety of Lake George. The head of the Marine Patrol is telling them they are safer. This is a public official saying he is doing a good job by telling the people what they want to hear. The observable facts and anecdotal evidence of boaters on Lake George tell a very different story of lax enforcement of the 45 MPH limit. If Lake George is safer, it isn't because of speed limit enforcement.

Bear Islander · 08-30-2007, 04:14 PM

pm203 and jeffk

If there are reports that the speed limit on Lake George is not working I would like to read them. I try and keep an open mind, but the only things I know about the Lake George speed limit are positive. If there is another side to the story then it should be told.

But neither of you have provided anything solid. "A friend told me" is not good enough in my book. Are there articles, web sites, letters to the editor etc..

4Fun · 08-30-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

It's not surprising that the MP can't find a speed problem in the test areas.

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.

If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.

If the MP wated to collect some valid data they could try unmarked boats in undisclosed areas. Publicizing the test area is... ..... .... ...... sorry I was laughing to hard to type.

ITD - Can you tell me the make and model of those PWC's that have a top speed under 45 mph?

1993 SeaDoo GTS. top speed a whopping 37MPH. For sale by the way for $1500.....

1996,97,97 SeaDoo GTI top speed about 45MPH....

1997 SeaDoo GS 45MPH tops....

overlook · 08-30-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dave R - You make some good points. But what makes me believe in speed limits is reports from other lakes that have enacted them.

You bring up Lake George. Lt Sneider runs the Marine Patrol there and thinks speed limits have helped their lake. Here is a link to a citizen article on Lake George.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN

I know Winnipesaukee is not Lake George, but if it can help there, it can help here. At least that is the way I see it.

Lake George does not have a safe passage law now and not before there speed limit. Of course it changes the opinion of Sneider. But remember two boats can have a closure rate of 90 mph within a few feet today. Right now in NH the closure rate is 12mph.

Do you really feel safer on Lake George?

codeman671 · 08-30-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by overlook

Lake George does not have a safe passage law now and not before there speed limit. Of course it changes the opinion of Sneider. But remember two boats can have a closure rate of 90 mph within a few feet today. Right now in NH the closure rate is 12mph.

Do you really feel safer on Lake George?

I have to agree here on the lack of safe passage. I feel safer having a boat doing 80mph that is by law to be 150+ feet away than having a 40mph boat passing me down the side at 30-40 feet away. The 80mph boat has less response time to react in an adverse situation than a 40mph boat, but if the 40mph boat is that much closer than the 150' limit in place here the reaction time is cut as well. Taking into account closing speeds of two boats each doing 40mph and headed towards each other the result could still be catastrophic.

jeffk · 08-30-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

pm203 and jeffk

If there are reports that the speed limit on Lake George is not working I would like to read them. I try and keep an open mind, but the only things I know about the Lake George speed limit are positive. If there is another side to the story then it should be told.

But neither of you have provided anything solid. "A friend told me" is not good enough in my book. Are there articles, web sites, letters to the editor etc..

I provide a link to the Marine Patrols report. This is hardly hearsay information. Further I provide a copy of an email provided to a forum member, also hard data. I could have provided a link to the comments of the marine patrol I found online but I figured my vouching for it was enough. I should have known better. The last third of my post is my summation and interpretation of the facts. Feel free to disagree with me. But don't try to dismiss hard information simply because it disagrees with your point of view.

Bear Islander · 08-30-2007, 06:07 PM

The statement that the Marine Patrol focus more on noise than speed does not mean that speed limits are not working. It may mean that speed is not a problem therefore does not require enforcement.

I don't find anything in the Report that indicated to me that speed limits are not working. What specifically indicates a problem with speed limits.

Lt Schneider admits he can not tell how much of their success is due to speed limits alone. That is a long long way from saying speed limits are not working.

Cal · 08-30-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Shall I also stay away from ForumFest?

Asking someone to leave the forum is inappropriate. Even if you put a smiley face at the end.

But it's ok for you to try to get rid of performance boats

Gavia immer · 08-30-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

"Showboating", using your described method, is breaking another of NH's boating rules. "Maximizing Air" is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. Also, it is impossible to "Showboat" at reasonable speeds. The broken back and pelvis couldn't have happened at reasonable speeds either.

The wave did cause him to be stopped "almost dead". But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

chipj29 · 08-31-2007, 06:55 AM

"Maximizing air" is illegal? And only on Winni?
Interesting...I never knew that.

Dave R · 08-31-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't find anything in the Report that indicated to me that speed limits are not working. What specifically indicates a problem with speed limits.

It's not in the report, per se, but since the real goal of speed limits is to rid a lake of high speed boats, it's obviously failed when folks hold poker runs there. What convinced you that Winnipesaukee will be different?

4Fun · 08-31-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

It's not in the report, per se, but since the real goal of speed limits is to rid a lake of high speed boats, it's obviously failed when folks hold poker runs there. What convinced you that Winnipesaukee will be different?

Islander, Why don't you push on areas that really need to be addressed. You would get a lot more cooperation and your agenda could be met without stepping on anyone else. Here are a few suggestions.

Try coming up with a plan to quiet down the boats that are way above the legal limit? You already have a law to work with. I see and hear lots of boats that have to be over the NH law. Just enforce the law!!! This one should be easy.

Try taking you energy and put it in to education. Focus the efforts of Winnfabs to educate the 50 bass boaters before they all take off from lee's mill at 60mph ALL AT ONCE!!

Try to lobby for better enforcement of the 150 rule. Not just more marine patrol but actually having them look for unsafe boating activity instead of sitting in the usual spots..

Separate the night speed issue from the day speed issue. Don't tell me I need a day speed limit because of an accident at night. They are two different issues.

If you really want safety then the above suggestions will help you get there.

ApS · 08-31-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

It's not in the report, per se, but since the real goal of speed limits is to rid a lake of high speed boats, it's obviously failed when folks hold poker runs there. What convinced you that Winnipesaukee will be different?

That's because Poker Runs are not speed events. The publisher of "Poker Runs America" says so himself:

Quote:

"...One of the reasons behind this craving for power is that more and more poker runners are itching to race. And, while I must make it clear that poker runs are NOT A RACE, I can't say that I blame performance boaters for wanting to get out on a course and show their stuff. Boat builders, too, have recognized this growing trend.

"While many poker runs invite every conceivable type of boat owner, the emphasis on performance boats is pretty evident, judging from the sleek, fast-forward designs owned by power-hungry participants, some equipped with three - even four - motors..."
http://www.pokerrunsamerica.com/publisher/pub-32.html

codeman671 · 08-31-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

"Showboating", using your described method, is breaking another of NH's boating rules. "Maximizing Air" is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. Also, it is impossible to "Showboat" at reasonable speeds. The broken back and pelvis couldn't have happened at reasonable speeds either.

The wave did cause him to be stopped "almost dead". But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

Funny, I don't recall seeing a law about jumping waves... Can you point that one out? You can launch a boat off a wave and not be doing it in a reckless manner. heck, I have had a 22' bowrider completely out of the water as I am sure many have on Winni being caught by a large wave on a bad day in the broads. If this has not happend to you then you do not boat enough...

They were showing off for the camera and got caught by the wrong wave. Yep, he was pushing the envelope and paid the price as did his pasengers.

After rewatching the video twice I see nothing that show other boats swerving to avoid a collision. As the boat wiped out the do not show any other boats in the video so how can you claim that they almost hit other boats? I think you are completely embellishing this.

jrc · 08-31-2007, 10:46 AM

How many of these rules did the boat in the video break? Of course these rules only apply in NH.

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.
(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

It's not in the report, per se, but since the real goal of speed limits is to rid a lake of high speed boats, it's obviously failed when folks hold poker runs there. What convinced you that Winnipesaukee will be different?

My goal is to try and change the direction the lake is going in. I would like the lake to be for the peaceful enjoyment of all. Not the enjoyment of a few at the expense of many. I think the are limits to size and speed that need to be set. I would like this to be done in a way that does not punish the boats that are already here.

If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me.

On another site one of the boaters in that poker run said he had to go to court and pay a $250 fine. I hope that is exactly how a speed limit will work on Winnipesaukee.

codeman671 · 08-31-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

How many of these rules did the boat in the video break? Of course these rules only apply in NH.

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.
(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

At the time of the accident he was not crossing another wake, it was a wave that made him go airborne. When he did cross a boat wake he never left the water. He did cross the wake of a boat at less than 150', I am not sure what the FL ruling is on safe passage.

WeirsBeachBoater · 08-31-2007, 12:31 PM

"I think the are limits to size and speed that need to be set."

Finally someone admits to Winnfabs true agenda. So its not about speed, its now about size and speed!!!!!

"I would like this to be done in a way that does not punish the boats that are already here."

So why are you pushing to get speed limits?

"If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me."

300 hp???? You have got to be kidding me. That is most boats over 20ft nowadays.

So if I want to stay on "your" lake I should invest in a canoe?

So much for my enjoyment, because of the few of you that don't agree with my style of boat. Isn't that exactly what you are preaching? That a few powerboats ruin your enjoyment. Now you are trying to say its ok, for the few of you to ruin the powerboaters enjoyment, as long as it is in your favor????

jrc · 08-31-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

At the time of the accident he was not crossing another wake, it was a wave that made him go airborne. When he did cross a boat wake he never left the water. He did cross the wake of a boat at less than 150', I am not sure what the FL ruling is on safe passage.

You are right, there doesn't seem to be a specific rule to address jumping waves, just jumping wakes. I did not catch the difference.

I didn't watch the video closely enough to notice that the accident was cause by a natural ocean wave versus a boat wake. I guess it is safer to run those boats on a lake.

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"I think the are limits to size and speed that need to be set."

Finally someone admits to Winnfabs true agenda. So its not about speed, its now about size and speed!!!!!

"I would like this to be done in a way that does not punish the boats that are already here."

So why are you pushing to get speed limits?

"If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me."

300 hp???? You have got to be kidding me. That is most boats over 20ft nowadays.

So if I want to stay on "your" lake I should invest in a canoe?

So much for my enjoyment, because of the few of you that don't agree with my style of boat. Isn't that exactly what you are preaching? That a few powerboats ruin your enjoyment. Now you are trying to say its ok, for the few of you to ruin the powerboaters enjoyment, as long as it is in your favor????

I am not WinnFABS, I am just giving my own opinion.

I don't know the kind of boat you have, but I doubt it was manufactured after 2008.

I think 300 hp is a reasonable limit on a municipal drinking water supply, and crowded recreational lake. You obviously disagree.

WeirsBeachBoater · 08-31-2007, 12:54 PM

It is a 25ft bowrider. Might do 55 on a good day.

Municipal Drinking water supply, is that the new angle that is going to be used next?

Sorry to assume you were a member of Winnfabs, guilty by association I guess.

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westchester

Municipal Drinking water supply, is that the new angle that is going to be used next?

It's already being used. And it's a pretty good argument.

And it's the kind of argument non-boaters and politicians can understand and hang their hat on.

Cal · 08-31-2007, 02:35 PM

And exactly what does horse power have to do with it

I'm sure my two inboard/outboards are cleaner than 12 ,100 hp two stroke outboards

What are you going to try next , color , shape , 1 , 2 or 3 engines , date of manufacture , location of manufacture , number of passengers it can hold , gross weight , with or without a windshield.
I'll swear , I've never heard so much noise from so few people in all my life

Resident 2B · 08-31-2007, 02:42 PM

Bear Islander,

Now that the exclusionary agenda you support is starting to come out, whether or not you are part of Winnfabs, let me elaborate on what you are saying.

No more boats with 300HP or more on the lake means no more Mount Washington, a legend that has been on the lake longer than most of us have been alive. Take the Doris E and the Sophie C off the lake as well and end the mail service to the folks on the islands.

You make a ton of sense

R2B

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Bear Islander,

Now that the exclusionary agenda you support is starting to come out, whether or not you are part of Winnfabs, let me elaborate on what you are saying.

No more boats with 300HP or more on the lake means no more Mount Washington, a legend that has been on the lake longer than most of us have been alive. Take the Doris E and the Sophie C off the lake as well and end the mail service to the folks on the islands.

You make a ton of sense

R2B

Hi Cal, At the Marine Patrol site there is a long list of NH lakes that already have horsepower limits. This is nothing new. HP and year of manufacture are listed on the registration of every boat.

Hi Resident2B, The Mount, Sophie C. and Doris E. all have dates of manufacture before 2008.

Please don't get so worked up, this is just one guys idea.

Cal · 08-31-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hi Cal, At the Marine Patrol site there is a long list of NH lakes that already have horsepower limits. This is nothing new. HP and year of manufacture are listed on the registration of every boat.

Without even looking , I'll bet they're all smaller than Winni and probably considerably smaller.
The statement was made about hp limits on drinking water lakes and again I'll say I'll bet my two I/Os are cleaner than 12 , 100 hp two stroke outboards , or 24 , 50 hp's

Skip · 08-31-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Without even looking , I'll bet they're all smaller than Winni and probably considerably smaller.
The statement was made about hp limits on drinking water lakes and again I'll say I'll bet my two I/Os are cleaner than 12 , 100 hp two stroke outboards , or 24 , 50 hp's

If you go to this LINK and review RSA 270:76 through 270:131 you can find the names of the lakes, or in most cases the ponds, that Bear Islander referes to.

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Without even looking , I'll bet they're all smaller than Winni and probably considerably smaller.
The statement was made about hp limits on drinking water lakes and again I'll say I'll bet my two I/Os are cleaner than 12 , 100 hp two stroke outboards , or 24 , 50 hp's

Since Winnipesaukee is the largest lake east of the Mississippi contained in one state.... or whatever the claim is, that is a safe bet. That doesn't mean a hp limit will not work on a large lake.

Two stoke engines have been all but eliminated by federal engine regulations. That is why you see all the four stroke outboards now.

Cal · 08-31-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Two stoke engines have been all but eliminated by federal engine regulations. That is why you see all the four stroke outboards now.

Better tell Mercury , Evinrude and Johnson. They're still selling plenty and I have no plans to stop that I've heard of

Bear Islander · 08-31-2007, 07:18 PM

I think you know what I mean. The old polluting two strokes are gone. The new two strokes have to be heavily engineered to meet tough EPA regulations.

Gavia immer · 08-31-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Funny, I don't recall seeing a law about jumping waves... Can you point that one out? You can launch a boat off a wave and not be doing it in a reckless manner. heck, I have had a 22' bowrider completely out of the water as I am sure many have on Winni being caught by a large wave on a bad day in the broads. If this has not happend to you then you do not boat enough...

They were showing off for the camera and got caught by the wrong wave. Yep, he was pushing the envelope and paid the price as did his pasengers.

How closely did you look? I don't see any "wrong wave" or "wrong wake" that caused the crash impact. And his passengers "paid the price" with more than a fractured pelvis suffered by the female passenger. Her bikini top got ripped off in the impact, and soared 40 feet over the crash vessel. You missed that during your careful analysis of the crash video, maybe.

Thanks, jrc for New Hampshire's wake-jumper RSAs.

codeman671 · 09-01-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

How closely did you look? I don't see any "wrong wave" or "wrong wake" that caused the crash impact. And his passengers "paid the price" with more than a fractured pelvis suffered by the female passenger. Her bikini top got ripped off in the impact, and soared 40 feet over the crash vessel. You missed that during your careful analysis of the crash video, maybe.

Thanks, jrc for New Hampshire's wake-jumper RSAs.

I do not think that her bikini top got ripped off, where the heck did you get that? Part of the windshield did break loose as did a towel fly. I have read comments from people at the scene on another site, by a friend of occupants of the vessel involved. They were the other boat pictured side by side before the lead boat moved ahead for the camera shoot. It was a wave that they caught at a bad angle when they landed. Maybe you should watch it again...

Please tell me what the impact was with then if there was no wave or wake involved???

Cal · 09-01-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know what I mean. The old polluting two strokes are gone. The new two strokes have to be heavily engineered to meet tough EPA regulations.

Sorry , I simply read what you said...didn't fill in any blanks. But until they are outlawed there will still be the older ones around for years. And yes , I know some places have already banned them out west.

Rattlesnake Guy · 09-01-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Since Winnipesaukee is the largest lake east of the Mississippi contained in one state.... or whatever the claim is, that is a safe bet. That doesn't mean a hp limit will not work on a large lake.

Good point. It's a big lake.

When people live in a big city and don't care for the big buildings and the noise they try to find a place to live where they can be happy. I think that our lake has something for everyone and am always overwhelmed with how most of us try to share it together.

Perhaps if someone longs for peace and quite and small boats they should find that type of lake or pond so they can be happy with the restrictive environment they long for. We don't kayak at the Weirs but have no problem finding an appropriate spot to enjoy quite time with the lake.

I don't think it is up to the government to legislate your idea of what you would like the rest of us to do to make the lake the way you would like it.

If I ever feel that the lake is too busy or the waves are too big when the wind blows, I would consider it my responsibility to find a place I could be more happy. Hey but that's just me.

LIforrelaxin · 09-01-2007, 04:36 PM

I have been reading this thread off and on wondering where things are going to go. And one thing strikes me everyone has picked a side and no one seems willing to compromise. certainly there are many issues speed, size, and noise levels that always come up. And sure the lake is here for eveyone to enjoy, but it is also our reposibility to preserve it tranquility. Myself I live on the Northern side of the lake where it is quiter most of the time, because I have no interest in being buy the hustle and bussle of Laconia and the wiers etc. that is a choice I made. I also made a choice to own a small boat because on the bad days I have no need to go out. In short people need to have some freedom to enjoy what the like.

Now when it come to speed... yes there are all kinds of arguments but when it come down to it we regulate speeds on the roads, why not in certain area of the lake... a comprimise that will still leave areas of the lake open for speed demons, but will insure that area where traffic tends to be heavier have some addition control.

when you look at noise.... the best thing when used properly ever invented where switchable exhaust... unfortunately NH saw fit to outlaw them......

As for size.... well I am one that admits enough is enough...... you can put specialties clause in for the Mount etc. but at some point the size of the yachts needs to be controled.....it seems that every year some get a bigger model, and the Marinas find a way to accomidate them..... when I watch my boat and dock get yanked around buy the incosiderate... few I know.... cruiser owner with displacemnt hulls that through out huge wakes it does get irritating.....how to comprimise here well this is tough....but I would say any boats currently on the lake are fine..... and start restricting what comes onto the lake........not that enforcing this would be easy.... there would be alot of responsibilty on the marina's I feel.....

Anyways enough of my rambles.... remember these are My views.... just as I appriciate everyone else... take mine for what they are MINE.....

Bear Islander · 09-01-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Good point. It's a big lake.

When people live in a big city and don't care for the big buildings and the noise they try to find a place to live where they can be happy. I think that our lake has something for everyone and am always overwhelmed with how most of us try to share it together.

Perhaps if someone longs for peace and quite and small boats they should find that type of lake or pond so they can be happy with the restrictive environment they long for. We don't kayak at the Weirs but have no problem finding an appropriate spot to enjoy quite time with the lake.

I don't think it is up to the government to legislate your idea of what you would like the rest of us to do to make the lake the way you would like it.

If I ever feel that the lake is too busy or the waves are too big when the wind blows, I would consider it my responsibility to find a place I could be more happy. Hey but that's just me.

I see the situation differently. I think if you want to buy a 1500 hp boat that is your business. But you need to use it in the ocean or some other body of water that is large enough for you to use it without endangering and disturbing others. Somewhere that is not a drinking water supply.

It IS the job of the government to protect our natural recourses and provide safety standards.

It actually amazes me that people can think speed limits on our highways are logical, necessary and in the public interest. However speed limits on our waterways are outrageous, illogical, unnecessary, dangerous or a violation of our rights.

tis · 09-01-2007, 06:12 PM

As usual, I totally agree with you RGuy.

BI. You said if someone wants a 1500 hp boat they shouldn't use it on this lake but on the ocean or some other big body of water. Didn't you just say that Winni is the largest in one state east of the Mississippi? So?
Did you ever stop to think that sometimes YOU in your kayak are an annoyance to someone in a big boat who has to watch out for you? It works both ways, you know.

Cal · 09-01-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I see the situation differently. I think if you want to buy a 1500 hp boat that is your business. But you need to use it in the ocean or some other body of water that is large enough for you to use it without endangering and disturbing others. Somewhere that is not a drinking water supply.

It IS the job of the government to protect our natural recourses and provide safety standards.

It actually amazes me that people can think speed limits on our highways are logical, necessary and in the public interest. However speed limits on our waterways are outrageous, illogical, unnecessary, dangerous or a violation of our rights.

I still haven't got the connection between HP and drinking water. I know I don't drain my oil into the lake , nor do I bubble carbon monoxide though the water with my exhaust , so what's the big whoop

As far as speed limits on the highway , THERE'S NOT 150' RULE THERE. Cars have a 10 to 12 foot lane and can pass at a closing speed of 110 mph on a two lane 55 mph highway. I have yet to see a deer jump out in front of a boat.
Finally , if i didn't like my neighborhood , I'd move. You said yourself it's the biggest lake east of the Mississippi.

LIforrelaxin has the right attitude. Anything else will just give you ulcers and a lot of other people a P.I.A.

Dave R · 09-01-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It actually amazes me that people can think speed limits on our highways are logical, necessary and in the public interest. However speed limits on our waterways are outrageous, illogical, unnecessary, dangerous or a violation of our rights.

Having driven quite a bit, all over the world, I can honestly say I vastly prefer places without speed limits or with really high speed limits. Not only can one make better time, the drivers in these places tend to be vastly superior to a typical driver here. I'd vote to eliminate or raise speed limts and increase the requirements for getting a license in NH.

GWC... · 09-01-2007, 09:18 PM

Just curious...

Did speed cause this or something else?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Airwaves · 09-02-2007, 12:45 AM

LIforrelaxin wrote:

Quote:

Now when it come to speed... yes there are all kinds of arguments but when it come down to it we regulate speeds on the roads, why not in certain area of the lake... a comprimise that will still leave areas of the lake open for speed demons, but will insure that area where traffic tends to be heavier have some addition control.

Island/relaxin I understand what you are saying. The thing is, from what the Marine Patrol and anecdotal evidence suggests, excessive speed, even on the broads, is something that, if it happens, it is rare. So the folks advocating a speed limit are doing so with another goal in mind.

Quote:

when you look at noise.... the best thing when used properly ever invented where switchable exhaust... unfortunately NH saw fit to outlaw them......

I 1-Thousand precent agree! Noise limits are needed. I don't have a boat that makes excessive noise, but I know that I was refueling once, just once, and I was having problems keeping the engine running (bad fuel), and while I was trying to hear the engine a loud boat fired up a dozen yards away and I couldn't hear my own engine. Yes, noise can be a problem.

Quote:

As for size.... well I am one that admits enough is enough...... you can put specialties clause in for the Mount etc. but at some point the size of the yachts needs to be controled....

I disagree here, who are you, or who am I to say someone can't purchase a substantial yacht and bring her onto the lake? You exempt the Mount because she's been on the lake for decades? Hell, my great grandfather lost his boat in the fire that destroyed the first Mount, the paddle wheeled steamer. (we still have my Great Grandfather's boat's flag and mount saved from the fire) So what if I wanted to become a competitor? My family certainly has just as much right and history! If someone has the money to bring in another substantially sized boat and can work a deal to moor her, who am I to say no? Who are you to say no? What makes the Mount untouchable in that case?

You make a good point that large personal cruisers can be a serious issue in the wrong hands. I was coming out of Paugus Bay with a friend who lives near Gov's Island. We were in a 23' bowrider. A large Carver passed us well beyond 150 feet and he was booking it, but the bow wave on that cruiser was going up above the bow onto the cabin deck! I have done some ocean boating in my life and I have never seen anything like that! The couple was on the flybridge and they were getting the spray from the bow wave!

I've never seen anything like it! I figure a combination of a poorly designed boat and ignorant skippers! Watching them convinced all of us to never buy a Carver and the wake he kicked up was amazing! You could have surfed on it!

Cruisers in the wrong hands are a problem, but that is a problem that will be addressed only through both, education of the bonehead skippers of the Cruiser/Bowrider/PWC/GoFast boat that are screwing up, and of them also being chastised by folks at his marina, yacht club, etc. Only then will they learn but probably very slowly. There are too many of these boats on the lake and each of them represents big money so they are not going away.

Certainly, it is easier for the legislature and advocates of a speed limit to pass a speed limit law but it won't solve a thing because, as has been shown through statistics, there isn't a speed problem on Lake Winnipesaukee there are other issues that are already regulated but not enforced consistantly.

When I first suggested a long time ago that the MP and SP be merged for better coverage on land and on the water and efficent control over financial resources I was told to mind my own business and to keep my mouth shut because I was critical of the NH way! Someone even asked I really believed the SP would give up their weapons to take to the water! I didn't bother to answer back then because the question was foolish, it still is.

Of course just because I pay taxes in three (3) NH communities and I still can't vote or have any say in town or state policy, what right do I have? Why shoud I have any say in how the money is spent or what laws are passed? By the way, how many towns in NH do folk on this forum pay property taxes in? Just curious.

AW

08-29-2007, 06:04 PM	#241
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread Last edited by jrc; 08-29-2007 at 06:45 PM.

08-30-2007, 11:38 AM	#256
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The white flag flies at the FF. It's a day for all to enjoy - just one rule - no heated topics are to be discussed... Oops, two rules - kayaks are welcome, too; but occupants must not be nekked - must keep Weirs guy happy. __________________ [Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]

08-30-2007, 03:11 PM	#259
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Another point It may be true that the GFBL crowd may not want speed limits. But I don't have a GFBL boat. Unless you want to call a Mastercraft ski boat a GFBL boat. If that is the case, we have outlawed the Abenaki ski club! My point is, why 45 mph? There are a number of barefoot skiers that will tell you that they can't ski comfortably at 45. I can ski comfortably at 52 mph. You are not only 'discriminating' the GFBL crowd, you are discriminating the barefooot skiers! I will be happy to support a 55 mph limit, but I am totally against 45. Now that Islander has mentioned an agenda against most boats by imposing a horsepower limit as well as a boat length limit. I can see where a lot of people that can not go that fast is coming from. We need to prevent the speed limits people from gaining an inch. I can see we are up to a lot of discrimination against boaters when they go the mile. Islander, you can't tell me what 'discrimination' is. I've been profound hard-of-hearing since birth. Believe me! I know what discrimination is! 'Don't tread on me!' __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

08-30-2007, 03:54 PM	#260
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,130 Thanks: 201 Thanked 421 Times in 239 Posts	Lake George - All talk, no action The following link is to the Lake George Park commission 2006 Annual report. http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/pdf/2006...l%20Report.pdf The report states at least a couple of speed related items. There was a poker run in October 2006 and 6 boats were running side by side in excess of 70 MPH, the fastest at 83 MPH. These people were ticketed (5 tickets). There is no further breakdown for non PWC speeding tickets (nor were any mention in last years report). PWC tickets are broken down into categories. For 2005 and 2006 NO PWC speeding tickets were issued for speeds in excess of 45 MPH. All PWC speed tickets were for no wake speed violations. The previous report also showed no PWC fast speeding tickets issued for 2004 either. No PWC has been been ticketed for over 45 MPH for the past 3 years. In other statements I have seen online, patrol personnel have stated that they focus on noise more than speed and that speed enforcement is NOT a primary focus. From a previous forum post: WeirsBeachBoater01-07-2006, 05:32 PM From: Lt. Joseph Schneider Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Info request The speed limit on LG is only one regulation of a comprehensive set of regulations passed in 1988 on Lake George when the NYS Legislature recognized the need for additional protection of the unique resource that is Lake George. LGPC regulations were promulgated regarding public safety, resource protection, docks and moorings, and special navigation issues such as overcrowding, vessel noise, PWC operation, and more; as such it is impossible to say what the effect of just the speed limit has been. Lt. J.H. Schneider Director of Law Enforcement Lake George Park Commission PO Box 749 Lake George, NY 12834 So the head of the patrol stated that he thinks speed limits have helped. What is he supposed to say "Well. we ticket people in no wake zones but in the middle of the lake it's a free-for-all and we don't pay much attention there"? If speeding was a focus they would publish the non PWC speeding ticket statistics. They probably don't for a good reason and their public statements played down speed enforcement until 6 BOZOS were so blatant that they couldn't possibly be ignored. They would have probably been ticketed on Winnipesaukee for reckless behavior. People wanted to feel better about the safety of Lake George. The head of the Marine Patrol is telling them they are safer. This is a public official saying he is doing a good job by telling the people what they want to hear. The observable facts and anecdotal evidence of boaters on Lake George tell a very different story of lax enforcement of the 45 MPH limit. If Lake George is safer, it isn't because of speed limit enforcement.

08-31-2007, 06:55 AM	#269
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Max air? "Maximizing air" is illegal? And only on Winni? Interesting...I never knew that.

08-27-2007, 06:13 PM	#203
overlook Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gilford Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	If I remember correctly the test zone idea was generated as a result from the September 25, 2006 Meredith gathering. Not from the proposed HB-847. The data collected was published through local media. From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph. Readings were taken from several locations and not just within the proposed test areas. Another conclusion is that boats observed were thought to be traveling faster than they actually were. The actual number of radar hits was not stated, though the observation has been most of the boating season. This is what I have read so far. It is clear to me that people who do not know what speed really is like (observation) assume that boats are constantly going over 45 where in fact they are most likely traveling much slower. When I was ten years old I thought the family boat ( 16' Thompson/ 40hp Scottatwater) could go 60mph. It actually could only muster 22-25mph. As I grew older I got accustom to what speed is, Too bad others are not, especially RENTERS. Islander: Just so you know the fastest I have been on the water was 140mph. It was a 17' tunnel with 300 hp. So your next agenda to limit hp and size will come up to that logic.

08-27-2007, 08:28 PM	#206
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!! You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett? "The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic," Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot". Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

08-29-2007, 09:20 AM	#221
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	[QUOTE=Dave R]Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.[/QUO Yes I would agree there are injuries from operating too fast for conditions on the lake in bow riders. In fact we've had a few ourselves when we were newbie boaters. A speed limit will NOT stop that...you can dictate the law but you can't dictate common sense. I was specifically referring to the video of the GFBL boat's racing at high speeds across the ocean. I've yet to see that happen here but I understand the broader meaning of the video and how it relates to us boats on Lake Winni. I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

08-29-2007, 11:40 AM	#227
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed? It only says careless and negligent manner! And to think I am the one accused of spin!

08-29-2007, 01:26 PM	#231
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Islander, you're pretending right?

08-29-2007, 02:06 PM	#235
Irrigation Guy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Moultonborough, NH Posts: 484 Thanks: 89 Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts	Jeff, very well put. Lets not forget Islander, of WINFABS fame, freely admits she would choose a higher speed than the 45 mph proposed limit, as she has a boat capable of 60mph+ and regularly travels at those speeds on this lake. Therefore she must consider that speed safe, due to the fact that she operates regularly at that speed in her own boat willingly and by her own admission.

08-30-2007, 08:16 AM	#249
VitaBene Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 3,532 Thanks: 1,574 Thanked 1,608 Times in 823 Posts	DaveR, you are right on with the 150' rule. The funny thing is the people I was scared to have within 150' of me last year either don't know there is a rule this year or have chosen to ignore it! See you on the lake!

08-30-2007, 08:37 AM	#251
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	I have a test zone detector. This summer I noticed my depth finder alarm going off in deep water. Then I discovered it was the Marine Patrol's radar that was setting off the alarm on the depth finder. I checked it out on a test zone last week. He points the gun at my boat, the alarm sounds. This test zone data may give them information on how to use radar on the water but I don't see it makes a difference to the speed limit debate. I don't see that numbers change the central argument. The age when children are required to wear a PFD changed from 5 to 12. I assume this was done because the legislature felt 12 was a more appropriate age than 5. How many 5 to 12 year olds were already wearing PFD's doesn't change the argument much. The issue was setting an appropriate standard. I hope the legislature does that again when they consider speed limits.

08-30-2007, 01:12 PM	#257
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	Dave R - You make some good points. But what makes me believe in speed limits is reports from other lakes that have enacted them. You bring up Lake George. Lt Sneider runs the Marine Patrol there and thinks speed limits have helped their lake. Here is a link to a citizen article on Lake George. http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN I know Winnipesaukee is not Lake George, but if it can help there, it can help here. At least that is the way I see it.

08-30-2007, 04:14 PM	#261
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	pm203 and jeffk If there are reports that the speed limit on Lake George is not working I would like to read them. I try and keep an open mind, but the only things I know about the Lake George speed limit are positive. If there is another side to the story then it should be told. But neither of you have provided anything solid. "A friend told me" is not good enough in my book. Are there articles, web sites, letters to the editor etc..

08-30-2007, 06:07 PM	#266
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	The statement that the Marine Patrol focus more on noise than speed does not mean that speed limits are not working. It may mean that speed is not a problem therefore does not require enforcement. I don't find anything in the Report that indicated to me that speed limits are not working. What specifically indicates a problem with speed limits. Lt Schneider admits he can not tell how much of their success is due to speed limits alone. That is a long long way from saying speed limits are not working.

08-31-2007, 10:46 AM	#274
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	How many of these rules did the boat in the video break? Of course these rules only apply in NH. Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels. (a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water. (b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel. (c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct: (1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision; (2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed; (3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and (4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

08-31-2007, 12:31 PM	#277
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	"And the truth shall set you free" "I think the are limits to size and speed that need to be set." Finally someone admits to Winnfabs true agenda. So its not about speed, its now about size and speed!!!!! "I would like this to be done in a way that does not punish the boats that are already here." So why are you pushing to get speed limits? "If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me." 300 hp???? You have got to be kidding me. That is most boats over 20ft nowadays. So if I want to stay on "your" lake I should invest in a canoe? So much for my enjoyment, because of the few of you that don't agree with my style of boat. Isn't that exactly what you are preaching? That a few powerboats ruin your enjoyment. Now you are trying to say its ok, for the few of you to ruin the powerboaters enjoyment, as long as it is in your favor????

08-31-2007, 12:54 PM	#280
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	I do disagree It is a 25ft bowrider. Might do 55 on a good day. Municipal Drinking water supply, is that the new angle that is going to be used next? Sorry to assume you were a member of Winnfabs, guilty by association I guess.

08-31-2007, 02:35 PM	#282
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	And exactly what does horse power have to do with it I'm sure my two inboard/outboards are cleaner than 12 ,100 hp two stroke outboards What are you going to try next , color , shape , 1 , 2 or 3 engines , date of manufacture , location of manufacture , number of passengers it can hold , gross weight , with or without a windshield. I'll swear , I've never heard so much noise from so few people in all my life Last edited by Cal; 08-31-2007 at 04:50 PM.

08-31-2007, 02:42 PM	#283
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	What are you saying? Bear Islander, Now that the exclusionary agenda you support is starting to come out, whether or not you are part of Winnfabs, let me elaborate on what you are saying. No more boats with 300HP or more on the lake means no more Mount Washington, a legend that has been on the lake longer than most of us have been alive. Take the Doris E and the Sophie C off the lake as well and end the mail service to the folks on the islands. You make a ton of sense R2B

08-31-2007, 07:18 PM	#289
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	I think you know what I mean. The old polluting two strokes are gone. The new two strokes have to be heavily engineered to meet tough EPA regulations.

09-01-2007, 04:36 PM	#294
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,827 Thanks: 1,017 Thanked 881 Times in 515 Posts	So far off on both side.... can there ever be comprimise I have been reading this thread off and on wondering where things are going to go. And one thing strikes me everyone has picked a side and no one seems willing to compromise. certainly there are many issues speed, size, and noise levels that always come up. And sure the lake is here for eveyone to enjoy, but it is also our reposibility to preserve it tranquility. Myself I live on the Northern side of the lake where it is quiter most of the time, because I have no interest in being buy the hustle and bussle of Laconia and the wiers etc. that is a choice I made. I also made a choice to own a small boat because on the bad days I have no need to go out. In short people need to have some freedom to enjoy what the like. Now when it come to speed... yes there are all kinds of arguments but when it come down to it we regulate speeds on the roads, why not in certain area of the lake... a comprimise that will still leave areas of the lake open for speed demons, but will insure that area where traffic tends to be heavier have some addition control. when you look at noise.... the best thing when used properly ever invented where switchable exhaust... unfortunately NH saw fit to outlaw them...... As for size.... well I am one that admits enough is enough...... you can put specialties clause in for the Mount etc. but at some point the size of the yachts needs to be controled.....it seems that every year some get a bigger model, and the Marinas find a way to accomidate them..... when I watch my boat and dock get yanked around buy the incosiderate... few I know.... cruiser owner with displacemnt hulls that through out huge wakes it does get irritating.....how to comprimise here well this is tough....but I would say any boats currently on the lake are fine..... and start restricting what comes onto the lake........not that enforcing this would be easy.... there would be alot of responsibilty on the marina's I feel..... Anyways enough of my rambles.... remember these are My views.... just as I appriciate everyone else... take mine for what they are MINE..... __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

09-01-2007, 06:12 PM	#296
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,411 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	As usual, I totally agree with you RGuy. BI. You said if someone wants a 1500 hp boat they shouldn't use it on this lake but on the ocean or some other big body of water. Didn't you just say that Winni is the largest in one state east of the Mississippi? So? Did you ever stop to think that sometimes YOU in your kayak are an annoyance to someone in a big boat who has to watch out for you? It works both ways, you know.

09-01-2007, 09:18 PM	#299
GWC... Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,325 Thanks: 5 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Just curious... Did speed cause this or something else? http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT __________________ [Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]