|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-27-2007, 01:57 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,949
Thanks: 80
Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts
|
House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age
House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age
CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House. Currently, children age 5 and under must wear protection. Boats with a 3-foot-high enclosed side rail would be exempt. Opponents argued that the requirement was intrusive because no children in the age range had drowned in boating-related accidents in the past eight years. The 204-135 vote sent the bill to the Senate.
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-27-2007, 02:47 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,360
Thanks: 210
Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts
|
Sounds great to me. My daughter is 7 and is not allowed on the boat without a PFD. Who would argue this???
|
03-27-2007, 04:10 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Merrymeeting Lake, New Durham
Posts: 2,217
Thanks: 299
Thanked 795 Times in 365 Posts
|
Shhhuuussshh! We've been telling our kids that it's 12 for years!
|
03-27-2007, 04:41 PM | #4 | |
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
|
Lol
Quote:
All the kids that ride in my boat know this rule and I have never had an arguement.... and it keeps them working on thier swiming and water treading abilities.... Now back to the law.... it is about time.... not often as most people are responsible, but on occasion I see young kids in boats with out them.... and it scares me..... people seem to forget how quickly accidents happen.... The last time I saw this I almost yelled at the guy.... they had a baby (1 or 2 years old) being held in moms arms..and I was helping them dock.. the excuse.... was "well he cries when he is in it"..... my thoughts kept in my head " you think he cries with that lifejacket, that nothing compared to your crying when he drownds"..... I just shook my head and didn't reply...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island..... |
|
03-27-2007, 10:16 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,352
Thanks: 987
Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts
|
Good Idea
I have an 11 year old son and I believe it makes good sense to have those 12 and under to wear PFDs while on boats.
Safety first! You never know what can happen out there. This is not a fear of other boaters. It is just common sense. FYI: I am also against the speed limit, but I fully support the speed limit test in limited ares of the lake this summer. Again, this is just common sense. R2B |
Sponsored Links |
|
03-28-2007, 06:43 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin, Ma / Gilford
Posts: 1,931
Thanks: 445
Thanked 604 Times in 340 Posts
|
As a Mass resident & boater in both States -the 12 year old Rule has been the norm for us. Mass has had the age limit at 12 for as long as I can remember and for the many weeks we spend on the Big Lake each year it is- Our boat Rule. With 4 grandchildren, we accumulated & always have numerous size PFD's (and not those orange ones) stowed away for visitors of all ages - including infants.
It was always one of those little quirky differences in the "rules book" between the states that I never could understand -- another is the classification of a "Ski boat" -- I think of Malibu & Mastercraft when I hear that term -- not a little 2 seater.
__________________
A bad day on the Big Lake (although I've never had one) - Still beats a day at the office!! |
03-28-2007, 07:36 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Although I strongly agree that it is wise for a child under 12 (or a person of any age for that matter) to wear a pfd, why do we need to legislate it? The article states that there have been no issues without the law, so why do we need the law?
For the record, I always wear my pfd when on my PWC, even though I am not required to by law...and I am well, well, well over the age of 12! |
03-28-2007, 09:43 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,130
Thanks: 201
Thanked 421 Times in 239 Posts
|
Sadly necessary
Quote:
|
|
03-28-2007, 10:21 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Concord NH
Posts: 239
Thanks: 19
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
Ahem
Quote:
__________________
"He who dies with the most toys wins" |
|
03-28-2007, 11:51 AM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I believe the pfd requirement also extends to kayaks and canoes. It always amazes me the number of people going without. (Seat cushions don't count in this case.)
Last edited by abay; 03-28-2007 at 08:58 PM. |
03-28-2007, 12:01 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
Under 13 ft long as manufactured Can exceed 20mph Can carry no more than the operator and 1 passenger All Jet Skis are PWCs, but not all PWCs are Jet Skis A PWC can be a 3 seater or longer than 13 feet and is considered and registered as a boat and subject to boating laws. Therefore, PFDs must be carried but are not required to be worn. However, wearing them is a sensible choice. |
|
03-28-2007, 07:45 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Concord NH
Posts: 239
Thanks: 19
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
Size matters
And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.
__________________
"He who dies with the most toys wins" |
03-29-2007, 07:04 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Quote:
Have YOU passed your boating safety course lately? I think the part that you may be missing is the definition of a ski craft in NH. A ski craft is a 1 or 2 seater. A pwc with 3 or more seats is considered to be a boat. |
|
03-29-2007, 08:17 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
Last edited by NightWing; 03-29-2007 at 09:29 AM. |
|
03-29-2007, 09:28 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
Again, all 3 conditions have to be met in order to be considered a jet ski or ski craft, and only then will the ski craft regulations apply. This may help: TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY CHAPTER 270 SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER Ski Craft Section 270:73 270:73 Definitions. – In this subdivision: I. ""Bureau'' means the department of safety, bureau of hearings, established pursuant to RSA 21-P:13. II. ""Department'' means the department of safety. III. ""Operator'' means a person who operates or who has charge of the navigation or use of a ski craft. IV. ""Private boat'' means a boat as defined in RSA 270:2, V, including a ski craft. V. ""Ski craft'' means any motorized watercraft or private boat which is less than 13 feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person while in operation. The term includes a jet ski, surf ski, fun ski, or other similar device. VI. ""Watercraft'' means a motorized ski craft, capable of being used as a means of transportation on or in the water, except a seaplane. Source. 1988, 283:1, eff. Oct. 1, 1988. |
|
03-29-2007, 01:55 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.
__________________
SIKSUKR |
03-29-2007, 02:20 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Nightwing has it correct.
Quote:
I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH. Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied. I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters??? |
|
03-29-2007, 02:25 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY CHAPTER 270-A USE OF HOUSEBOATS Section 270-A:3 270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. – No houseboat shall be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period, except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. No houseboat shall be anchored on any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968. |
|
03-29-2007, 02:34 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Loopholes, gotta love those loopholes!
Good one Nightwing.
Now here's the rub. Below I post the statutory definition of a houseboat. Now, there is only the banning overnight of HOUSEBOATS, but no general statute banning other boats! Some say that the "temporary" covers the seat cushions on your boat and a toilet could be your bailing bucket. However, many of today's 20 footers and up come with porta-potties and obviously seat cushions. So, if these options make these bow-riders/cuddies "houseboats", why are they then not banned on the lakes & ponds in New Hampshire that do have specific bans on "houseboats"? Because they really are not "houseboats" and are found in abundnace on inland water bodies where true "houseboats" are banned! Aha, what we have here is a classic legal loophole! TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY CHAPTER 270-A USE OF HOUSEBOATS Section 270-A:1 270-A:1 Definitions. – The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: I. ""Person'' means any individual, firm, co-partnership, company, association or joint-stock association, including any trustee, administrator, executor, receiver, assignee or other personal representative thereof. II. ""Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature. III. ""Overnight period'' means the period of time between the termination of daylight in the evening to the earliest dawn in the next morning. IV. ""Mooring'' means beaching, grounding, or tying of a houseboat to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state, and the anchoring of a houseboat on any of the inland surface waters of the state. Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968. Here is an example of where HOUSEBOATS are specifically prohibited by law: 270:77 Squam and Conway Lakes and Silver Lake in Madison. – No person shall at any time place in or upon, or use, or operate upon, Squam Lake or Conway Lake or Silver Lake in Madison any houseboat. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a violation. Boards of health and health officers of towns abutting said lakes shall have power and authority to enforce the provisions of this section. |
03-29-2007, 03:16 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
How is this enforced? On Winnipesaukee, overnight anchoring is clearly enforced against all cruiser type boat. (I have seen people get away with it after Labor Day) These boat have permanent sleeping and toilet facilities, so they are houseboats, right?
Do MP enforce the overnight anchoring rules against bowriders or pontoons? Can I anchor my bowrider at the sandbar overnight? Can I sleep on it? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag. Can I take a cruiser on Squam? Can I take a bowrider or pontoon? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag? I guess the rules are unclear, but how are they enforced? |
03-29-2007, 03:57 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Great questions.....
Quote:
It also points out the danger of making blanket statements when it comes to our local, state and federal laws. No wonder there is so many lawyers out there. Take IslandLovers blanket statement that bicycles must abide by speed laws. There is an RSA that says generally bicyclists must follow motor vehicle laws. However, there is a separate RSA that states that speed laws only apply to (mechanized) vehicles. One contradicts the other. Many of you may remember the bicyclist arrested for DWI several years ago. Because the bicycle & motor vehicle code were contradictory the case was headed to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of applying those laws. Of course both sides were afraid of the outcome and the case was settled. The point here is the blanket statement in the boating guide that overnight anchoring is illegal in New Hampshire is not supported in totality by a New Hampshire RSA or the Administrative Code. It is quite clear that houseboats cannot anchor overnight. Houseboats also have a fairly clear definition. What I am pointing out here is, in my opinon, a common perception held by many about staying out overnight in a boat that is not a houseboat. And remember, the overnight prohibition appears in a specific chapter devoted exclusively to houseboats. Anyway, I bring this diversion up as an interesting point of discussion. Let me rephrase the question, can anyone show me a RSA or an Administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring for any vessel other than a houseboat? |
|
03-29-2007, 04:40 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Deja Vu
Quote:
I can't and to revive another related question ... is it legal to anchor for the fireworks displays ? Note the aforementioned RSA, particularly the portion that says "or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency." I guess it's OK in a skiff but not in a cruiser. Back to PFDs .... I assume everyone knows that the USCG was floating the idea that all people should wear PFDs, all the time. There was some talk (a couple of years ago) about making it a regulation for boats under 21'. I wonder what people would say about this, should it come to pass and the States follow the lead for their inland waters.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
03-29-2007, 04:47 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Apologies and last thoughts....
Quote:
Back to point, I would be opposed to the possible regulation you cite. |
|
03-30-2007, 07:09 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Quote:
However, I have never gone out on my pwc without wearing mine. Never have and never will. And I certainly would never allow either of my children (currently 11 and 16) to go without one. At any age. Period. |
|
03-30-2007, 10:00 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 95
Thanks: 2
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
|
Not only do our kids wear PFDs (they are over 5 years old) on our boat. My wife also started wearing one full time incase someone falls overboard she can jump in after them without having to worry about herself (smart idea).
I don't set a good example but I keep a PFD on the seat next to me. If I go out alone I put it on. They make some fairly comfortable PFDs these days. From the NH boating safety course: Approximately 70% of all boating fatalities are drownings, and most of those fatalities could have been avoided. Ninety percent of drowning victims are not wearing a life jacket. |
04-02-2007, 08:56 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
SIKSUKR |
|
04-02-2007, 03:47 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
04-02-2007, 04:30 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2007, 09:16 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gilford Islander
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
It really doen't take a great stretch of the imagination to understand why speed didn't make it to the House and life vests for older kids did. Go figure. |
|
04-03-2007, 10:53 AM | #30 | |
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
|
Quote:
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island..... |
|
04-03-2007, 11:17 AM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
In alot of states, inflatable PFDs are not considered PFDs as far as the state boating regulations go. You must have type III which do not inflate.
|
04-03-2007, 12:01 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 753
Thanks: 59
Thanked 271 Times in 129 Posts
|
Inflatable PFDs
GWood, I think the issue is that for it to count as a PFD, you must be wearing it. Which states don't consider an inflatable PFD (properly worn) to meet flotation device requirements??? I don't think you can use a manually inflatable device (like a snorkeling vest) but they are not marked as PFDs anyway. It certainly is ok in NH -- and that's what matters here. The MPs wear them too.
As to the earlier point about needing to pull the inflation cord to inflate the vest, many (mine included) have a pill wedged into a release device that will quickly dissolve when wet, triggering the release and causing the vest to auto-inflate. I haven't tested it (those cartridges are expensive!) but have thought about it.... I always wear a PFD when fishing on my Whaler. Too easy to get knocked overboard by a wave or boat wake in a small boat with very low railings. Besides, I'm often alone fishing very early in the morning. Common sense. |
04-03-2007, 12:23 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
|
Manual or Auto
Quote:
These PFDs come in 2 types; those that require manual activation and those that automagically inflate. The real reason you might not want one with a cord is your stupid cousin Bubba. You know Bubba, he's the one who will ask "What's this cord fur ?" 1.2 seconds after he pulls on it.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH |
|
04-03-2007, 12:28 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Inflatable are by no means perfect, but what's safer, a type 3 that you don't wear or an inflatable that you do?
Nauset said he felt like he wasn't setting a good example, this is just one possible solution. Just for the record, I don't own or wear an inflatable, and I don't wear my PFD. |
04-03-2007, 02:47 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gilford Islander
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
I believe this derives from RSA Title XXII, Section 270-A:1. I have considerable respect for your knowledge, Skip. Did you really not know this is a rule? |
|
04-03-2007, 03:16 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Boater's Guide
Quote:
RSA 270-A:1 specifically and only addresses Houseboats. You average bowrider, pontoon and skiff do not fall under this definition or they would be banned from a number of lakes & great ponds that have specific restricitions against Houseboats but currently (and legally) are chock full of bowriders, pontoons and skiffs! The only RSA or Administrative rule banning overnight anchoring specifically and only addresses Houseboats. The purpose of my pointing this out is just give an excellent example of just one of the numerous recreational and motor vehicle laws that are in contradiction with other regulations, outdated or simply misapplied. And that is why you have so many lawyers out there! But as always, the aforementioned is only my personal opinion. Please feel free to call NHMP HQ at 1-603-293-2037 and ask the on duty supervisor to kindly provide you with the statute or administrative rule that prohibits vessels not classified as houseboats from anchoring overnight on New Hampshire's inland waters! Last edited by Skip; 04-03-2007 at 04:16 PM. |
|
04-03-2007, 04:58 PM | #37 | |
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
|
Lol
Quote:
As for the auto inflation I never looked into that but I will now.... the life jacket was my uncles and I put it on knowing I had to wear it and never gave it a second thought.... until as mentioned the boom and my head had a close call.....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island..... |
|
04-03-2007, 05:41 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gilford Islander
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
Are you also saying the rule given on page 44 is NOT a rule? If not, what is it? I think it is MP's interpretation of an RSA, as many others are. We all know that RSAs are not the full story, hence the rule-making authority of MP [and other agencies]. I suspect that Judge Smuckler, when faced with the houseboat defense, might just ask if the accused needs neither sleep nor bladder relief during the overnight hours------before he assesses the fine. Legal eagles will always seek to find ways to evade the intent of the law. If you insist, I could ask a member of the General Court who is also a property owner on the lake to craft a clarifying RSA. You raise an interesting and frustrating example, to be sure. Perhaps you can tell me why lawyers do not craft wording that everyone can understand? |
|
04-03-2007, 06:10 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Final thoughts....
Quote:
There is no administrative rule nor RSA that has a blanket effect of banning boats form anchoring on inland waters in New Hampshire. There is a specific RSA that bans a narrowly defined specific craft, that being a houseboat. The guide you mention as well as the on-line course are documents generated by a third party company on their interpretation of law as provided by the NHMP. Neither source has a force of law. Your final point would make sense, if only the folks that pass the laws would heed the advice of the attorneys hired by them. In many cases the citizen lawmakers take it upon themselves to push forward or ammend legislation against the advice of the attorneys we pay to prevent them from the mistakes that emotionally charged legislation usually invokes. In closing, I firmly believe that the powers to be at NHMP are fully aware of the loophole in the RSA, and have not brought it forward because if folks actually realized what the RSA covers, they may not be so inclined to ban boats that are not houseboats. Plus, how do you explain to the General Court that you either never realized the problem, or realized it and chose to ignore it all these years? Finally, the danger in ammending or proposing new legislation is not knowing where it will lead. Case in point? The fiasco that has encompassed the helium ballon bill! But that's a whole 'nother thread! |
|
04-03-2007, 06:54 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
|
....flotation belt
Anyone remember those old waterski belts from 30-40 years ago. Overton's has them in updated design with a nylon belt, plastic clip(s) and closed cell vinyl foam flotation. No one has mentioned the flotation belt. While they do not qualify as an approved device they facilitate swimming better than an approved pfd because they are worn around one's waist. Costing about fifteen or twenty dollars and available in single or double strap models in either white or bright yellow, they are much less bulky than a flotation vest, more comfortable and could be considered.
When sailing alone on a windy day, it's possible to comfortably wear both a pfd and a ski belt below the pfd, especially if you are a natural sinker. For extra padding from getting boomed-on-the-brain by a flying aluminum jibe while avoiding a 47'-12000lb-1680hp-gfbl that zips safely past, a legal 150' away, I like to wear the waist belt around my head (smiley face ha-ha) ! Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-04-2007 at 07:55 AM. |
04-03-2007, 10:29 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2007, 05:15 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Good try!
Quote:
To give you an example, several years ago a bicyclist was arrersted in New Hampshire for DWI (the first and only such recorded arrest). During the trial the key element was to make the assumption that a bicycle is a vehicle and subject to the motor vehicle code. As the case went forward both sides agreed to settle on a charge of reckless conduct and drop the motor vehicle charges agreeing that the code was not clear, while a group of lawmakers on both sides of the issue promised to take up the statute and clarify it. Results? No conviction under the motor vehicle code and no definitive action yet from the legislature. Police officers in this State before and since have not attempted to apply offenses requiring "to drive" to bicyclists, for obvious legal and common sense reasons. Hope this helps! |
|
04-04-2007, 06:44 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
|
What about a Zamboni?
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/new....ap/index.html Sorry to get off track...just thought of this thread when I read the article. |
|
04-04-2007, 08:34 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Skip
My point was that you were incorrect about about a bicycle being a mechanized vehicle. So instead of taking the long way around the barn, just answer the main question please. Is a bicycle a mechanized vehicle? |
04-04-2007, 08:53 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
|
Maybe five years ago, I was stopped by a Waterville Valley police officer because I was riding a bicycle after dark with no lights, no helmet and was weaving back and forth, slalom style, across the center white line on Rt 49. I cannot remember what he said but I did not get cited for any violation. Probably he said, I could not be seen in the dark, and maybe he was just checking to see if I was sober......which I was.
|
04-04-2007, 09:01 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Points....always those pesky points!
Quote:
I'll try this one last time.... Speed laws in New Hampshire pertain to motor vehicles. They pertain to motor vehicles because a key element in the offense of unreasonable speed is "to Drive". In New Hampshire "to Drive" is legally defined as to operate a motor vehicle. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Under certain limited conditions a bicycle can be defined under the motor vehicle code as a vehicle, along with a horse or a mule or a donkey. But a vehicle is not the same legal definition as a motor vehicle! Now, since you cannot meet all the necessary legal elements required to convict for unreasonable speed: Speed laws do not apply. Hope this clarifies it for you! |
|
04-04-2007, 12:00 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Merrymeeting Lake, New Durham
Posts: 2,217
Thanks: 299
Thanked 795 Times in 365 Posts
|
Quote:
http://www.comcast.net/news/strange/...03/627400.html |
|
04-04-2007, 12:34 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
That time you not only went around the barn, you got lost in the hay bale! Are you unable to answer a strait question, or do you have a problem admitting you made a mistake? Is a bicycle a mechanized vehicle? That's one of those "yes" or "no" things. You have not "cited the pertinent regulations" you just say that it is so. Give us the RSA number. Below is the RSA that pertains to bicycles and motor vehicle laws. If you know of an RSA that counters this, please give us the number without the long "explanation". 265:143 Application of Motor Vehicle Laws to Bicycles. – I. Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the rules of the road, except as provided in paragraph II and as to special regulations in this subdivision and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. II. (a) Any peace officer, wearing a distinctive uniform, operating a bicycle during the course of his or her duties is exempt from the provisions of this subdivision, except as those provisions relate to driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, if the bicycle is being operated under any of the following circumstances: (1) In response to an emergency call. (2) While engaged in a rescue operation. (3) In the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. (b) This paragraph shall not relieve a peace officer from the duty to operate a bicycle with due regard for the safety of all persons using the public way. |
|
04-04-2007, 12:46 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Aw c'mon...am I gonna have to send you a bill?
Quote:
In order to be found guilty of a violation in the State of New Hampshire ALL elements of the offense must be proven by the state. One of the elements of unreasonable speed in New Hampshire is "to Drive" which can be found in RSA 259:24. The legal definition of "to Drive " in New Hampshire is to drive a motor vehicle. If you go to the basic speed law at RSA 265:60 (I) the opening paragraph is "No person shall drive". A bicycle is not a motor vehicle hence the element of "to Drive" cannot be substantiated, therefore you cannot violate the current speed laws in New Hampshire as written on a bicycle (or a mule, horse or donkey). Either that or I must have been asleep in my radar certification class! It's really as simple as that....but again don't take my word for it, look up the case. The effort you will expend will give you a much greater appreciation of our State's motor vehicle code! Anyway, please feel free to contact me off line and I would be glad to help you get your head better wrapped around this concept.... |
|
04-04-2007, 01:49 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Yes Skip, a bicycles is not a motor vehicle. I think we all agree on that.
However RSA 265:143 clearly states that bicycles are subject to all the laws that a motor vehicle is. Your "Drive" definition 259:24 only applies to motor vehicles. And as we have all agreed, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle. I guess your real intension here is to talk this issue in circles so that most readers will give up and not follow what is going on. However you and I both know that you are wrong, but will not admit it. |
04-04-2007, 03:01 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
We'll agree to disagree....
Quote:
No one under 16 could "drive" a bicycle! Before you could "drive" your you would need lights, mirrors, a horn and working wipers! And of course you could only burn unleaded gasoline in your bicycle! I can only chalk up your obstinance over this matter as a complete misread of the statutes involved, much as you misinterpreted HB125 in your post #1 of the same named thread by not fully reading or understanding paragraph II of the proposed legislation. But hey, maybe you are right and all that training and experience I have had in this particular matter was for naught. Yep, I better head right up to Radio Shack and get one of those new fangled cordless RADAR/LASER detectors that are on sale and mount it right up high on my handlebars! They're still legal on bikes, right? |
|
04-04-2007, 03:11 PM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 32
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
back to the matter at hand!
Live free or die is more then a slogan. The operator of a boat should be responsible not a bunch of quacks in Concord.
|
04-04-2007, 03:15 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Short, simple & to the point!
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2007, 06:25 PM | #54 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,788
Thanks: 2,085
Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts
|
Confused?
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Every MP who enters Winter Harbor will pass by my porch of 67 years... |
||
04-05-2007, 01:07 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: winter harbor
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 33 Times in 18 Posts
|
pfd's
House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age
"CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House." Just wondering....in the bill, just what exactly is the definition of "ride"???? |
04-05-2007, 03:19 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Underway....
Quote:
Here is a text of the proposed legislation: No child 12 years of age or under shall operate, control, or be transported on the deck of a boat or vessel which is underway upon the public waters of the state unless said child is wearing a personal flotation device of a type approved by the United States Coast Guard; provided, however, boats, vessels, and ships with continuous side rails enclosing the perimeter of the boat, vessel, or ship, 3 feet or more in height and enclosed between the deck and the top of the railing in a way that would reasonably prevent passage of a small child are exempted from the provisions of this section. |
|
04-13-2007, 01:44 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 658
Thanks: 121
Thanked 283 Times in 98 Posts
|
Kids and PFDs
I spend a lot of time with the boating public and I think that it is nutz that we can argue about speed limits and if we should have a law banning certain water toys and ignore the fact that NH is the only state, around here anyway, that can let a six year old go out without a PFD on. That said...
Moms and DADs PLEASE listen. All of the requirements for children to wear PFD apply only when the vessel is UNDERWAY. This is defined as when the vessel is not anchored(moored), docked or aground. The problem is that kids don't drown on vessels that are underway. They drown at the dock, at the beach, at the river and in the pool. Please, until they are very good swimmers, keep the kids in PFDs any time they are near the water and not being well supervised. As for inflatable PFDs. These ar Type Vs. I believe that the law requires that a type I, II or III PFD be worn while riding on a Jet-Ski. The type V may not fit the bill. As for auto inflating type Vs, I never work underway without a type V on. Which is why I don't use an auto inflator. While I can imagine a situation where I am unconcious when I hit the drink I don't think that it is likely. What does happen often is that I enter the water on purpose for work or play and the manual inflator ("Just pull the string") gives me the option to wear the PFD without popping the $20 auto inflator. For example. I wear my type V when I am sailing the sunfish. I would not if I had to worry about it going off every time that I dumped it. Misty Blue. |
04-13-2007, 04:20 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
I agree that laws should be enacted to protect us however it's been said before on this forum and I'll say it again..you just can't dictate common sense. New Hampshire does not have a helmet law for motorcyles which I personally think is insane...how many lives could be saved by passing a helmet law in New Hampshire?? It's one that would not take too much effort to enforce either, as you can cleary tell if a rider has a helmet or not. I guess I'm just saying you can pass all the laws you want and some will agree and some will disagree...you just can't legislate common sense!
|
04-15-2007, 07:31 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
|
Quote:
I do have issues with helmet laws for adults, though. I like the freedom of choice even though I always wear full gear (not just a full face helmet, but over $1000 worth of high quality, very effective, protective gear) when I ride one of my motorcycles. If folks want to ride without gear, I say let them. They're not endangering anyone but themselves. Same deal with seatbelts. I wear mine all the time. Don't care what other adults do. |
|
04-15-2007, 09:56 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
I wasn't comparing the two laws simply saying that you can't dictate commone sense..it's common sense to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle because if you were to fall off your head would probably suffer siginifcantly less damage then if you were riding sans hemlet...just like wearing a helmet when you ride a snowmobile or bicycle. It's all about common sense, some people have it, some don't. No matter how many laws you enact you will NEVER be able to protect people from themselves, plain and simple.
|
04-15-2007, 12:02 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
04-15-2007, 01:14 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
Quote:
I agree Dave, I don't think there could ever be a law enacted to protect you from yourself. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|