Bill Filed to Modify and Enhance Speed Limits in NH

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG


Safe Boaters of New Hampshire proposes an enhanced modification of Lake Winnipesaukee’s speed law to include the entire state.


For Immediate Release:

After two years of the current speed law on Lake Winnipesaukee, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has looked at the statistics, as the law originally passed mandated, and has seen that, as predicted by the Marine Patrol, the mandated speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee have made no difference.

The NH Marine Patrol handed out 20 speeding tickets during what everyone called the best boating season on Lake Winnipesaukee in years. That number of tickets is consistent with the Marine Patrol’s 2007 report showing less than 1 percent of boats using Lake Winnipesaukee exceed 45 miles an hour (the current speed limit) and none were clocked by radar going faster than 62.

In light of those findings Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has asked Senator Lou D’Allesandro (D) District 20, Goffstown and Manchester to file legislation that would enhance and modify the current law regarding speed on Lake Winnipesaukee with a focus on safety, not numbers. Along with Senator D’Allesandro the bill has received large bipartisan support with Senator Boutin and Senator elect Sanborn co-sponsoring from the Senate and over a dozen Represenatives from the House pledging support.

Among the enhancements to the law is an escalating fine structure, allowing a violator to pay a fine rather than the more expensive option forcing a Marine Patrol officer to be tied up in court. It also establishes a way to permanently ban habitual offenders from New Hampshire waterways.

The modification also provides for the enhanced ability of the Marine Patrol to get reckless and dangerous boaters off the water by more closely following existing US Coast Guard regulations regarding speed on the water. Currently a Marine Patrol officer has to rely on radar or following a boat during a chase to determine whether the vessel is exceeding the “posted” speed limit. The modification eliminates those requirements and allows the Marine Patrol officer to use his/her training to determine if a boat operator is traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions without regard to actual miles per hour.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that these enhancements and modifications will bring Lake Winnipesauke and the rest of New Hampshire’s lakes, ponds and rivers more into line with the rules enforced by the US Coast Guard along New Hampshire’s coastal waters and in most of the rest of the country thereby reducing confusion among boaters, allowing the Marine Patrol to identify and remove dangerous boaters from the lake, and make the waters of New Hampshire even safer.

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boater group gets Manchester senator to sponsor bill that would repeal big lake speed limit
By Michael Kitch
Nov 24, 2010 12:00 am
CONCORD — After roiling the Legislature for the past six years, the controversy over speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will resume when lawmakers return to the Statehouse in January.

On behalf of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, an organization formed in opposition to speed limits, Senator Lou D'Allesandro (D-Manchester) has filed legislation that would replace the fixed speed limits of 45 mph. in daylight and 30 mph. after dark with what is "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions." This same standard has figured in past debates about boat speeds, only to be rejected as too vague.

D'Allesandro, the deputy leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate, counts seven co-sponsors of his bill — two senators and five representatives —all Republicans. In addition, four other Republican representatives, including Dave Russell of Gilmanton, have expressed support for bill.

Scott Verdonck of Goffstown whose family owns property in Moultonborough is president of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. He characterized the legislation as "a modification," not a repeal, of the current law.

In 2008, after four years of debate, the Legislature set limits of 45 mph. and 25 mph. beginning on January 1, 2009, but, stipulated that without further legislative action they would repeal as of January 1, 2011. Last year the Legislature repealed the repeal while raising the nighttime speed limit by 5 mph.

As drafted the new bill would require vessels to proceed at "a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions." The conditions include visibility, traffic and weather as well as the characteristics of the vessel, especially its stopping distance, turning radius and draft.

In contrast to the speed limits, which apply only to Lake Winnipesaukee, the "reasonable and prudent" standard would apply to all inland water bodies and waterways throughout the state.

Verdonck said that the language mirrors rule six of the Navigational Rules prescribed by the United States Coast Guard, which he stressed would bring New Hampshire into conformity with most other states. Pointing to the 21 tickets written during the two years the speed limits have been enforced, Verdonck insists that "speeding is not an issue on the lake" and the law is unnecessary.

Sandy Helve of Nashua who summers on Bear Island in Meredith heads the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS), the group that spearheaded the effort to introduce speed limits. "The law works and works well," she said. "I am disappointed that legislators would want to change a law that's working." She stressed that speed is "a critical safety issue" and the limits have enabled people to pursue diverse activities on the lake, from swimming to kayaking, assured of their safety. While acknowledging the role of WinnFABS, Helve said that repeated surveys have shown that "many, many people from all part of the state support the speed limits."

"We've been fighting this issue for the past six years," Helve said. "We can't afford to sit back now."
.

[fatlazyless]

Most readers will probably agree, that the so called "voting one's wallet" is usually a deciding factor when deciding how to vote on any one election of candidates or referendum on an issue.

Likewise, when it comes to the speed limits-no speed limits-Winnipesaukee decision, what you have for a boat is probably a big determining factor in how you feel about this issue.

So, here is a question for you, what's your boat?

Mine is a 1993 - 16' Alumacraft-side steer w/ a 40-hp outboard. It gets up on plane at about 18-mph? and has a top speed of maybe 35? Plus, I have a 13'6" Starwing sailboat, 17' Ranger row-canoe, and 16' Necky kayak which were all purchased as second hand, backyard bargain, oldy-moldy, el cheapo deluxo, fixer-uppers for $800, $200, & $200. ...

[BroadHopper]

FLL. Please move your topic to another tread. This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

FLL. Please move your topic to another tread. This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.

Already we have a disagreement here....not a big surprise...

I'll keep this very brief. What's reasonable and proper for a 32' Baja Outlaw powered by twin 600-hp inboard-outboards is definately not reasonable and proper for a canoe, kayak, small sailboat, or small motorboat, and they all have to share the same water on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Already we have a disagreement here....not a big surprise...

I'll keep this very brief. What's reasonable and proper for a 32' Baja Outlaw powered by twin 600-hp inboard-outboards is definately not reasonable and proper for a canoe, kayak, small sailboat, or small motorboat, and they all have to share the same water on Lake Winnipesaukee.

You are comparing oranges with dump trucks here. Reasonable and proper in the 32' Outlaw that you describe would depend on a mulitude of conditions, including weather, other traffic, etc.
For example, going 45 MPH in a busy bay may not be reasonable and prudent on a Saturday, but in the Broads it might be perfectly fine. Just like being in a kayak in a nice quiet bay might be reasonable and prudent, but being in a kayak in the broads on a windy day is not.

[VtSteve]

Great point Chip.

As a point of reference, here is a Coast Guard link for navigation and rules set forth. This link provides for comparisons between the International and Inland rules. Overall, the rules are consistent with the COLREGS, which set the International rules for avoiding collisions at sea. I believe they've been in place for some 40 years or so.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesContent

Most of the rules are very straightforward, common sense. As most mariners know, safety and speed are relative to the conditions. There exist many inland bodies or water where speed limits and other such restrictions have been put into place. Many of these waterways still have far too many accidents. In most cases around the country, the accidents, and all too often, the fatalities resulting, occur for the same reasons, regardless of speed limits. But I don't want to debate speed limits, because I feel that everyone should be aware of the far more comprehensive boating safety rules contained in the above link.

Regardless of the written laws. Everyone should always be in the SACC.

Sober Aware Careful, Courteous

Copyright and Trademark pending, VtSteve

[Skip]

It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Skip

It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....

Careful Skip, your colors are beginning to show beneath that robe of impartiality yours...

Was it not you who not long ago praised BearIslander and other SL proponents for the way that they promoted their cause and used NH laws to their advantage to persuade the state legislature and governer in Concord to enact the SL law? I could be in error, but I believe that you remained silent regarding their mode and plan to promote their desired result. Please explain how dissimilar the manner and method of SBONH is in pursuing their agenda?

As I read it, this particular press release it is no more vague than what Winnfabs used to support their agenda. IMHO, SBONH are not attempting to increase the speed limit, but are looking to give the Marine Patrol more latitude(ie an additional tool in their toolbox) to stop boaters who operate their craft at unsafe speeds--Mirroring a USCG rule of navigation.

Your Grandfather was a wise man. In like fashion, my father who I also consider to have discerning judgment would, in this instance, offer a different but no less appropriate comment..."be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

[Skip]

Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.

[Yankee]

Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.

Very good points!

The problem with the first Bill was how it was modified throughout its process and in the end included Statewide ramifications (boating offenses Statewide being included on your license, but failure to hold statewide hearings, especially on the seacoast).

This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!

This same debate played out a few years back in the snowmobile community. For those of you that sled you are aware of this State's 45 mph speed limit (exception being lakes) along with a number of other dependent speed limits. Some argued that this would take away from ridership. People would go to Maine where there are no limits. The limits would be unenforceable.

Years later everyone has adapted fine. And even though almost any modern snowmobile can go double, sometimes even triple the 45 mph limit the great folks at NH Fish & Game have proven that enforcement is possible.

Why does that matter? Because over time it has helped develop the belief that NH is a family friendly snowmobile community. It is a mantra stressed by Fish & Game, the NH Snowmobile Association, the Bureau of Trails and so on. I've witnessed it first hand and reasonable restricitions coupled with education and fair handed enforcement works.

But it took a number of years for the full effect to become apparent.

Quite frankly I do not see the Legislature repealing the current limits. A much more reasonable approach may have been to look at the 45 mph upper limit, or allowing an area like the Broads to have an exemption. Currently if you ride a sled you have no limit if you are on a frozen body of water, albeit there are reckless operation and other limits that still apply.

But I'm no fool. This proposal if passed as written will mean virtually no enforcement and the President of SBONH knows this. But it will probably be modified and once again have unforseen negative statewide ramifications, as the first Bill did. Coupled with the fact that I know a lot of people voted for the Legislature to tackle spending and tax issues, and not get bogged down right out of the gate tinkering with social issues.

Some enjoyed the thrill unbridled speed brought by boating in the past on Winnipesaukee with no limits. I don't condemn that mindset or the folks that enjoyed it. But a series of unneccesary accidents, whether related to speed or not, convinced the majority that additional rules needed to be put in place to curb abuse.

I may not agree with the 45/30 limits, but they are finite limits that I can easily measure and operate within.

The proposed legislation removes those finite and measurable limits, and subjects me at all times to the whim, fancy and mood that the observing officer may be in. To me that is much more unacceptable than the current law and in the end will be the flaw that leads to it being inexpedient to legislate. Believe it or not many Bills emerge each session from Legislative Services poorly thought out and not ready for prime time. This is just another example of the same.

That's my $.02 and I'll bow out now and consider other people's opinions. However if this Bill does somehow wind its way too far through the process I'll guess I'll have to send my best suit to the cleaners as a trip to Concord will definitley be in my future!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone....

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Skip

This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!

I hope that the President of the SBONH reads your comments because you are so on the mark!

Thanks Skip!

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.

So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!

This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip

My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?

Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Skip

Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip

Skip, I appreciate your response. And not to split hairs here, however, Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are inland waterways and governed by the CG. Now I realize that they border Canada and the CG presence is needed in this situation. None the less, still inland waterways.

Have a great Thanksgiving with your family!

[classic22]

Skip,

This post is a response to some of the questions you raised regarding the proposed Speed limit modification bill that was recently filed.

As you probably know, press releases are not designed to give you every detail of the message it is releasing, by their nature they cannot. It affords the reader to get some basic information, and points them to the SBONH website for further information.

Repeal and replace is verbage used for any bill that exists and is being modified, and is not indicative of the bill itself.

The wording in this legislation is taken directly from the US Coast Guard rule. I think we can all agree that the Coast Guard is the pre-eminent organization regarding boating safety. The Coast Guard and our own State marine patrol use this rule effectively every day on our coastal waters and coastal waters around the country. I have not heard of any complaints of our marine patrol abusing this rule in their enforcement on our coastal waters, so I am confident that this would carry to our inland waters with out concern.

SBONH has consulted with our marine patrol and other marine safety organizations before this bill was drafted.

This bill unlike the law in effect today would become a statewide law, hence the reason for getting state wide support from legislators. But in answer to your question yes the bill does have “lakes region support” with two reps signing on as co-sponsors.

Our organization SBONH is open to all that have an interest in boating safety. Skip, since you have shown an interest, SBONH would welcome you to join us to help shape current and future legislation as we move forward. SBONH has grown in to a well respected organization thru out the state despite what you may hear from a few detractors on this site. Happy Thanks giving every one!

[Bear Islander]

Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!

Yes, analogous to supporting a SL bill in a misguided attempt to eliminate a certain type of boat because of its involvement in a personal tragedy. A tragedy whose sequence of events had nothing to do with the boats capabilities, but was a direct result of an impaired captain behind the wheel.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.

Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ½-hour away from peaceful boaters.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ½-hour away from peaceful boaters.

Over-sized boats is all relative. You want to limit SIZE than address that with SIZE restrictions and not speed. You can have small vessels that go wicked fast. Faster than reasonable and prudent for some conditions.

APS, what is reasonable and prudent speed for a 15 foot Boston Whaler is different under the same lake conditions than for a 21 foot cuddy cabin or a 24 foot performance boat or a 26 foot cabin cruiser or that 56 foot Carver luxury yacht.

I don't think the 56 foot luxury yacht can get even close to the 30 or 45 mph speed limits but it is the only one that I think should go to the ocean.

Reasonable and prudent speeds for the boat and conditions is common sense in writing.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ½-hour away from peaceful boaters.

Yup, it's the boats fault. It drove it's self all on it's own.

[hazelnut]

Personally I would LOVE Skip and Bear Islander to become
Members to assist with future legislation. There are no two members that I respect more with regard to knowledge of the law and legislation process. I'd love it if SBONH had you two as consultants.