"Educating" those danged Winnipesaukee boaters

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

In any case I think FJ is correct in that the reps should view those posts !

M&M,
I guess all this seems to have become moot today anyway, since everyone started deleting everything there today after reading pm203's request. Now I guess nobody will be able to read any of this stuff. Wonder why it was all deleted if it was not a problem? It's too bad there wasn't any way to have saved any of this stuff.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I guess all this seems to have become moot today anyway, since everyone started deleting everything there today after reading pm203's request.

It is unbelievable that they removed ALL those posts. The same people that always talk about "facts" remove them if they don't serve their purpose.

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Boater

It is unbelievable that they removed ALL those posts. The same people that always talk about "facts" remove them if they don't serve their purpose.

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

I hope that our legislators are smart enough not to make laws that effect the entire state of New Hampshire based on unsubstantiated, anonymous posts, linking to anecdotal evidence. I hope they realize that very little on the internet is fact checked and any bozo can post or un-post anything. I hope instead the use rational thought, and reliable research. But I also hope that Santa Claus brings me good presents

[pm203]

The posts were deleted because you take them and twist them to meet your own agenda.Safety is not the issue here,and you know it.You and your group do not like performance boats and will do what ever it takes to make them go away.You have gone to great lenghts to instill fear in the general public and even have the commitee backing an unneccessary law based on political agenda,not fact.If you look at the way they voted,you can tell it was political and not based on fact.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.
Paul

[Woodsy]

Regardless of if they were removed or not, they were viewed by many. I personally don't think that deleting the threads on accidents was a good idea. I also don't think one should sensationalize the accidents either. Look at the facts!

My point is, that of the thousands of Hi-performance boats in America, Over a period of 4 years, the original poster was able to compile a list of only 50 accidents, nationwide! 50 ACCIDENTS OVER 4 YEARS, NATIONWIDE! That's it 50! 12.5 accidents per year! Most of the 50 accidents compiled were the result of driver error of some extent or BWI! To be sure speed was a factor in some of the accidents, but not all.

Accidents will happen if a human being is operating the piece of equipment, its a statistical fact. Nothing, no amount of laws, training or education will eliminate accidents completely. However, as the number of registered boats has increased here in NH and nationwide, the number of accidents has DECREASED. Explain that? Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Woodsy

[winnilaker]

I agree with Woodsy, I wish they wouldn't remove them.

Originally Posted by Boater

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

This is a classic, shenanigans? How about when a Winnfabs officer logged into another site, posing as a performance boater (fasterthanthou), using a fake name, BUT real phone number, posted this.

"I heard that the RR&D committee said they will not pay any attention to online petitions because they are "too easy to fix" and non-residents can "too easily forge them". But at least the one that WinnFABS started at http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/HB162 will not get any respect either. A friend of mine was at that Winnfabs meeting yesterday and said they already have over 6000 signatures on their petition, signed in ink by legitimate NH residents. So this might be a waste of time. I'm jut going to wait and see what happens and go to Lake Champlain if the bill passes."


And when a thread that was discussing on how to oppose House Bill 162, his post was:

"Count me in. Let me know how I can help."

Look honestly, removing posts was not a good approach, especially since that data can be found publicly in other ways. I say keep them, since when you look at each issue/accident, the information will detail what really happened.

But I will quote Bear Lover here to illustrate not everyone is like that:

"This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Regardless of if they were removed or not, they were viewed by many. I personally don't think that deleteing the threads on accidents was a good idea. I also don't think one should sensationalize the accidents either. Look at the facts!

My point is, that of the thousands of Hi-performance boats in America, Over a period of 4 years, the original poster was able to compile a list of only 50 accidents, nationwide! 50 ACCIDENTS OVER 4 YEARS, NATIONWIDE! Thats it 50! 12.5 accidents per year! Most of the 50 accidents compiled were the result of driver error of some extent or BWI! To be sure speed was a factor in some of the accidents, but not all.

Accidents will happen if a human being is operating the piece of equipment, its a statistical fact. Nothing, no amount of laws, training or education will eliminate accidents completely. However, as the number of registered boats has increased here in NH and nationwide, the number of accidents has DECREASED. Explain that? Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Woodsy

Woodsy

I think I can "Explain That"

The decrease in accidents on Winnipesaukee can be attributed to....

Boater Safety Certification law still being phased in
Bear Island NWZ law from the 90's
Meredith NWZ law recently enacted
Several recent laws regarding PWCs and where they can be operated
Increased enforcement of the laws by the MP

See, these laws do work! And just think how much more the accident rate will drop when the Eagle Island NWZ and HB162 take effect!

To be fair there are other factors also involved like better equipment, increased public awareness and a few more I'm sure you can think of.

[Bear Lover]

Woodsy and Winnilaker

It's easy to post here and say the threads should not have been deleted. Why don't you post that on OSO?

[winnilaker]

I just tried to follow the link above to do just that, but apparently even that link got removed. I don't frequent that site that much, I will try and keep an eye open for new ones to let those folks know not too. You can search on my name over there, my position is , attacking users, does not help anyone, especially since proponent folks keep a close eye on them.

Would you like me to post a new thread there? Will that really make a difference to everyone?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Look at the facts!

Unfortunately, now that will not be possible, because your members have had them all deleted. Of course, I'm sure that at least some of those facts have been saved , but when they are publicized now, we will be accused of selecting. Now your side can conveniently claim that things were not really that bad, but that you are the ones who are unable to prove that.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Does this really need an explanation? How bad were things going to be with HB162 hanging over you all last summer? As one example, you surely heard the strong warnings given to racers before this year's Donzi Poker Run to behave exceptionally good and go especially slow this time. This sounds a bit like the Tookie Williams "but he's been so good lately" argument.

[Bear Lover]

For me the problem is when opponents say one thing here, then I go to OSO and read something totally different, and in many cases insulting. I'm not taking about you.

I can assure that what is said here by proponents, is identical to what is said at proponent meetings.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I don't frequent that site that much

I don't buy that. Seems that whenever things got interesting over there you have noticed and jumped right in. I've personally read numerous posts by a "winnilaker" on that site who signs off as "Custie" and often warns talkative members that we are watching and telling them not to be making anymore admissions. I'll look for that when I get time, but its my guess that I'll find that all of those have been deleted too.

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I will try and keep an eye open for new ones to let those folks know not too.

Here's one for you; How about replying to it and telling people not to follow pm203's request with the same vigor you have used in your other posts there?
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...2&postcount=82

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Would you like me to post a new thread there? Will that really make a difference to everyone?

It will make a difference to me. Ask people to weigh in again on their feelings about the dangers of high speed boating, to recount all those deleted personal experiences with boating accidents and tragedies, to tell us again of friends that they have lost to boating, to repost all those photos of tragic acidents, to tell us again whether they feel that reasonable speed limits are justified in some cases. Start another poll like the one that was deleted that had about 67% of OSO's own members favoring a nighttime speed limit because they recognized things were getting out of hand and saw this as a necessity to "save their sport". Try to recreate all of the information that was lost by all the recent deletions if you are really sincere.
I also recall that you've been influential with that webmaster in the past in having posts removed and "lurkers" ejected, how about asking him to repost all of the stuff that was deleted? Walk the walk.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Isn't the best decision going to be made in Concord if all of the facts are on the table?

Somehow I doubt you really care if the best decision is made. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you are only concerned with the bill passing as though that could be the only best decision.

I'd love to see some good data that shows what a great idea the speed limit is. I could be easily convinced that it's a good idea with simple facts. Please post some facts. By "facts", I don't mean "so and so deleted 50 anti-speed limit posts on OSO". I really don't think anyone with much intelligence thinks this sort of debate matters at all.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Somehow I doubt you really care if the best decision is made. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you are only concerned with the bill passing as though that could be the only best decision.

I said from the start that I was so adamant about all this only because I felt from my personal experience over the past few years that HB162 represented what the citizens of NH wanted. I said I'd drop out the debate and even support the opposers if I learned otherwise. Last summer, via a lot of misinformation, your side almost had me convinced I was wrong. Notice that I did not take part in this discussion for several months? Once I saw how overwhelming the support for this law by the lake's owners was, and how the RR&D Committee even saw fit to strenghten and expand it after all their research, my passion returned. If you are the sincere ones, publish the NHRBA poll, the one they had done, the one that was also commissioned to a legitimate polling house using proven methodology and asking a fair and simple question, the one that says that a majority of NH citizens want to see the no-rules, no-limits, fast-fun environment on Winnipesaukee continue, and I'll bow out. My personal feelings aside.
If you guys were half as sincere as me, then you'd have bowed out as soon as the ARG poll published. So please don't challenge my sincerity.

[Bear Lover]

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Opinion - These laws are working, we need more

What we really need is personal responsibility.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

Don't forget, HB162 is bad for the commercial fishing industry. They need to get to the prime fishing spots before dawn every morning. NH fishermen will suffer because the Maine, Mass fisherman do not have to obey speed laws in their states.
I just attended a Christmas Party in Seabrook, and told about 20 or so fishermen about it. They are fuming because they were not aware that this law will effect them. They will be calling their state representatives. The HB162 folks have completely left them out when the had their hearings in The Lakes Region. HB162 have sent them a very Merry Christmas.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

Thanks for summing it up. Truth is, I would need to see the second fact reversed to be convinced we need more laws. Being an engineer, I live by the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" creedo. I am sure we can respectfully disagree on that forever.

Granted, it's not a full 68%, but Richard Nixon got around 61% of the popular vote in 1972. Bill Clinton, the only other impeached president in recent history, got a smidge more than 68% of the vote in 1992. I have little faith in the ability of most voters to make a good choice... That said, I'm not a fan of making laws based on opinion, be it popular or not. I think facts are far better.

Not that it would convince me either way, but can anyone share the credentials of the "experts" that claim HB162 would be good for tourism and the economy? Not trying to be a jerk, I am truly curious. Maybe it would sway someone your way.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni

Please tell me this isn't in reference to Littlefield.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Please tell me this isn't in reference to Littlefield.

You know it is!

And if the 25 mph speed limit had been in effect , the police would've had him cuffed , booked and jailed before the accident ever happened , for an ESTIMATED speed of 28mph

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Cal

You know it is!

And if the 25 mph speed limit had been in effect , the police would've had him cuffed , booked and jailed before the accident ever happened , for an ESTIMATED speed of 28mph

Well I suspect you are correct but I'd rather not assume and let BL speak for himself (herself ?). Moreover I don't think (aargh, making an assumption) that BL's point is that the speed is estimated but rather that 28 is/was too high. But again I'd rather get my info straight from the "bear's" mouth.

ps - IMO This whole discussion is on the verge of going into soap opera land. There's far too much of they did this/them did that and not enough of what facts are pro or con HB-162. I do understand how emotional the topic is and how easy it is to "retaliate" when you think you've been "attacked". Certainly there is a wider aspect to HB-162 than mere speed and danger. Still I do hope that both pro and anti people can at least try to keep things more about what the ostensible purpose of HB-162 is. I for one am not interested in personalites or hidden motivations even though I'm well aware they exist.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Certainly there is a wider aspect to HB-162 than mere speed and danger. .

I believe the vast majority of proponents do not like performance boats (fast , slow , noisey , or quiet). They perceive them as evil and want them out of their lake.
Uninvolved bystanders are easiey swayed after hearing horrors storys of how the race around and terrorize other boaters on the lake...so of course like obedient sheep the go along with the crowd for safety sake. That is a very easy point to get acrossed

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

I believe the vast majority of proponents do not like performance boats (fast , slow , noisey , or quiet). They perceive them as evil and want them out of their lake.
Uninvolved bystanders are easiey swayed after hearing horrors storys of how the race around and terrorize other boaters on the lake...so of course like obedient sheep the go along with the crowd for safety sake. That is a very easy point to get acrossed

Just so we are clear, the "Uninvolved bystanders" and "obedient sheep" you refer to are the 66% of NH voters that want a speed limit?

Don't forget that the citizens of NH own the lake.

[JDeere]

Of course the majority of the people get it. Slower is safer. Period. There is not logical argument to counter that. The majority get it. The special interests that care only for their “right” to do whatever they want are not concerned about anybody getting in the way of their fun even when it impacts everyone else’s ability to enjoy the lake.

And can you folks who keep on using the state motto of “Live Free of Die” give it a rest.

I do not think Stark intended it to be use in the defense of GFBL crowd.

The words "Live Free or Die", written by General John Stark, July 31, 1809, shall be the official motto of the state of New Hampshire. It was the 1945 Legislature that gave New Hampshire its official motto and emblem, as World War II approached a successful end. The motto became "Live Free Or Die," as once voiced by General John Stark, the state's most distinguished hero of the Revolutionary War, and the world famous Old Man of the Mountain was voted the official state emblem. The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."
-The New Hampshire Almanac

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

66% of NH voters that want a speed limit?

Just a few simple questions:

How many people were involved with that survey?
Where was the survey done?
Who paid for the survey?
Were they boaters?
Were they from the lakes region?
Did the survey specify the arbitrary limits or just a speed?
How come anybody who opposes HB162 never seem to have remembered being part of this survey?

Let's not forget all these NH citizens that oppose it:
http://www.opposehb162.com/opposehb162/testimonials.htm

real people, real names, real passion to do what's right!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Of course the majority of the people get it. Slower is safer. Period. There is not logical argument to counter that. [/B]

To follow your logic, it's safest to sit perfectly still and do nothing. That seems pretty illogical. Why 45 and 25? Why not 53.2 and 24? or 0 and 0? The numbers seem rather arbitrary.

I routinely exceed 500 MPH, have covered more than a million miles at that speed over the years, and am still very much alive. If slower is so obviously safer, why not have a speed limit in the air?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave R

To follow your logic, it's safest to sit perfectly still and do nothing. That seems pretty illogical. Why 45 and 25? Why not 53.2 and 24? or 0 and 0? The numbers seem rather arbitrary.

I routinely exceed 500 MPH, have covered more than a million miles at that speed over the years, and am still very much alive. If slower is so obviously safer, why not have a speed limit in the air?

I've wondered a number of times who the expert was that came up with the 45/25 deal. Why not 60/25 or 30/10. 30/10 certainly would be safer , right?
What would you bet it's somebody who's boat will do...........oh lets say.......... ahh.......mmmmmmm........43mph. Wanna bet?

And they figure that's as fast as anyone has to go

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

To follow your logic, it's safest to sit perfectly still and do nothing. That seems pretty illogical. Why 45 and 25? Why not 53.2 and 24? or 0 and 0? The numbers seem rather arbitrary.

I routinely exceed 500 MPH, have covered more than a million miles at that speed over the years, and am still very much alive. If slower is so obviously safer, why not have a speed limit in the air?

As a licensed pilot I can tell you that there are speed limits in the air!

The speed limits for aircraft are dependent on altitude, distance from an airport and if you are in a terminal control area. You must also comply with any speed given you by air traffic control.

There is also an FAA overall speed limit of 758 MPH over land. The military can exceed this if necessary.

These speeds limits are higher than with boats. But remember that at 45 MPH most planes will drop out of the air like a toolbox.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Dave R

To follow your logic, it's safest to sit perfectly still and do nothing. That seems pretty illogical. Why 45 and 25? Why not 53.2 and 24? or 0 and 0? The numbers seem rather arbitrary. {snip}

The above is my main problem with HB-162. I know of no analysis that says these #s are really what's needed and not excessively restrictive. When you look at auto accident data you generally find that up to a certain speed the accident rate is a constant. Accidents happen at all speeds in a more or less random fashion (because speed isn't the prime causitive factor, other things are). Beyond that speed the rate rises rapidly and in a non-linear fashion. You have gone beyond a limit of some sort (perhaps the road curves sharply or you can't see far enough ahead to avoid a fixed hazard or ??). I believe that speed on the lake follows the same pattern. While JDeere wants to claim slower is safer, and that may be true in some theoretical sense, I claim that the additional safety factor difference between 35 - 45 - 55 - XX is so small as to be meaningless in the practical world where we operate our boats. Below the critical speed, speed ceases to be a factor in whether there's an accident or not. As can be seen from Rep Pilliod's comments the above thinking wasn't part of the decision process. It was simply an arbitrary limit that he thought was "fast enough".

[Bear Lover]

There were many people, myself included, that believed 45 was to low and wanted something higher. But the opposition was into a "no limits" and "live free or die" thing and wouldn't even talk about it.

I remember somebody asking about 70 MPH and they were told NO!! Not 70 not 100 not 200.

A large number of HB162 supporters would have been just as happy or even happier with 60. Now HB162 is a shoe in that might not even be voted on. So now people want to talk about a higher more reasonable limit. I am honestly sorry about that, but I think it's to late.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

There were many people, myself included, that believed 45 was to low and wanted something higher. But the opposition was into a "no limits" and "live free or die" thing and wouldn't even talk about it.

I remember somebody asking about 70 MPH and they were told NO!! Not 70 not 100 not 200.

A large number of HB162 supporters would have been just as happy or even happier with 60. Now HB162 is a shoe in that might not even be voted on. So now people want to talk about a higher more reasonable limit. I am honestly sorry about that, but I think it's to late.

WOW , like Snoopy and the Red Baron you must have mellowed for the Holiday season
I could even go for 60 mph , even though mid 80s are attainable. Over 55/60 mph GPH start climbing drastically , not to mention down time and the cost replacement parts .
My present engines have about 90 hours on them and probably less than 2 hours over 60 and less than 1/2 hour at WOT. I'm not one who drives it like I stole it
In any case , lets have a truce for tomorrow (Christmas) and give it He!! again on Monday


Merry Christmas mein friend

[Aubrey]

I support HB162 but think 45 is not the right number. I would like a higher limit, but it never got off the ground.

None of the supporters thought 45 was to high. Some though it was OK, others wanted it a little higher. 6 months ago a compromise could have happened.

The big surprise is where are the PWC crowd. This thing became about high performance boaters. Seems to me more PWCs will be effected than GFBLs. And the limit will also effect PWC rentals, yet some marinas that rent them, like y landing, support the limit. Surprising.

[b8tcaster]

I feel that if hb162 passes the lake will probably become a more dangerous place to boat. With a mostly seasonal staff of marine patrol officers, and a limited one at that, it seems to me that the focus should be on very high traffic areas of the lake where speed is usually not an issue anyway. Dont you think that having more marine patrol boats say aroung Eagle/ Governors Islands or Bear Island would make the lake safer instead of having them chase down go fast boats in the broads? The costs associated with enforcing a new law such as this would be better spent adding to the staffing level and enforcing the most common causes of accidents. What are proponents of the law going to say when there are no MP boats in those areas because they are chasing me across the broads to write me a ticket for doing sixty and then again when the officers are in court with me because I decide to fight the ticket?How is this going to make the lake safer? If safety is really the answer then address the real cause and put your efforts to greatly expanding the Marine Patrol so that we can all have a safer lake. Perhaps if both sides of this issue met and came up with proposals to increase the MP budget we might all benefit from increased safety on the lake. Think what a joint venture between both sides might accomplish. Or is safety not the real issue here?

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by b8tcaster

I feel that if hb162 passes the lake will probably become a more dangerous place to boat. With a mostly seasonal staff of marine patrol officers, and a limited one at that, it seems to me that the focus should be on very high traffic areas of the lake where speed is usually not an issue anyway. Dont you think that having more marine patrol boats say aroung Eagle/ Governors Islands or Bear Island would make the lake safer instead of having them chase down go fast boats in the broads? The costs associated with enforcing a new law such as this would be better spent adding to the staffing level and enforcing the most common causes of accidents. What are proponents of the law going to say when there are no MP boats in those areas because they are chasing me across the broads to write me a ticket for doing sixty and then again when the officers are in court with me because I decide to fight the ticket?How is this going to make the lake safer? If safety is really the answer then address the real cause and put your efforts to greatly expanding the Marine Patrol so that we can all have a safer lake. Perhaps if both sides of this issue met and came up with proposals to increase the MP budget we might all benefit from increased safety on the lake. Think what a joint venture between both sides might accomplish. Or is safety not the real issue here?

Is safety the issue here? ya right!! politics is the issue here

[Gilligan]

Instead of legislating speed limits maybe we should legalize public nude or clothing optional areas and beaches around the lake.

If there were a few of those around the area I would expect that Go Fast Be Loud boaters would be slowing down all on their own. Probably down to headway due to the volume of boats in the area.

Legislate freedoms not restrictions. Say yes to relaxing nude and no to speed limits.