Safety suggests speed limit test...

Skip · 03-17-2007, 06:14 AM

In today's electronic edition of the Union Leader, coverage of yesterday's hearing and a proposal by Safety to try speed limits on the Big Lake in a limited fashion this summer around Bear & Rattlesnake Islands (45 day/25 night). You can read all about it HERE.

This morning's Citizen also has an article covering the same topic, written from the perspective of a different reporter. You can read this article HERE.

Silver Duck · 03-17-2007, 09:04 AM

That proposal makes a great deal of sense! I don't know about the Rattlesnake Isl. area, but I frequently see the same few performance boats taking advantage of the smooth, late evening water conditions between Bear Isl. and the mainland and the generaly light boat traffic during that time frame to make "speed runs".

I've never felt particularly threatened by them because of the size and visibility of my boat, but I can see how people in small boats making the crossing from Bear Isl. could feel a major "pucker factor".

Also, gaining some experience with trying to enforce a speed limit before trying to go live with one everywhere seems an intelligent approach.

And, finally, this ought not to drive anybody off the lake!

Kudos to the MP for a well thought out approach to this!

Silver Duck

Dave R · 03-17-2007, 09:55 AM

Those two areas are good candidates for a test area. That said, they have always been good candidate areas for speed enforcement and I'm surprised they have not been targeted (using the existing laws regarding safe operation) yet. Sounds like a good compromise, even though I'm against speed limits in general.

THAT said, I can't recall ever witnessing anyone doing anything reckless through either area, certainly not at speeds over 45MPH. We've been overtaken by boats closer than 150' by Bear Island, but we were going 30 MPH or so, and the "offending" boats were probably going <40 MPH (they may have gone faster once they were beyond us though). These were not unsafe incidents, just unlawful. Didn't bother me at all.

I think the 150' rule is a bit over the top, but I do appreciate the stress-free boating it provides. Winnipesaukee is such an easy and mellow place to boat due to the nearly 100% compliance (I think there's been a dramatic improvement in compliance in the last 5 years) with that law lately.

Resident 2B · 03-17-2007, 10:15 AM

Although I do not have a "fast boat", I have been totally against a lake wide speed limit, but I have not become involved much in this already too intense discussion. I feel everyone should be able to use their boat, as long as it is within the laws and in a safe manner. From experience and personal observations, I agree that the GFBL folks as a whole are very good and very safe boaters that play by the rules. "19' rentals" and rental PWC's are a real problem that should be addressed by stronger enforcement of the existing laws.

The proposal for a test in specific areas of the lake is something I believe makes good sense. The MP could determine how effective and enforcable speed limits can be based upon a real use of the speed limits.

More importantly to me, the fact that the limited ares have been proposed tells me that it would be feasible to have limits in some places and no limits in other places. As long as there are reasonable areas and times for people who have "fast boats" to use them in a safe manner, up to the speeds they are designed to go, then a speed limit in specified areas might be a good compromise.

I see this as a potential 'win-win' situation and something everyone should think hard about.

Best wishes to all for a quick Ice-Out and a safe year on the water.

R2B

Skip · 03-17-2007, 11:44 AM

Here is a third VERSION of the same event as reported in today's electronic edition of the Concord Monitor. It is interesting to read the subtle differences and opinions each reporter imbeds in their respective story!

fatlazyless · 03-17-2007, 03:41 PM

As discussed in Dept of Safety Commissioner Flynn's recommendation, maybe the waterway between Bear Island and the mainland, and Penney Island at the south end (across from Buoy 3), and Pine Island to the north, could become the designated area for kayakers. It is two miles long and has, except for two Marinas, a relatively undeveloped shoreline on the mainland side thanks mostly to Camp Monotomy, a YWCA girl scout camp. The Bear Island side has lots of trees and island cottages.

Here's the article from today's March 17, Laconia Daily Sun, from the top headline on page one. The LaDaSun is not on the internet.

.................................................

Flynn makes waves around boat speed limit bill

Department of Safety tells lawmakers it will impose two 'pilot speed zones' on Lake Winnpesaukee this summer if they agree to put a one-year hold on legislation that would effect all NH lakes

By Michael Kitch
The Laconia Daily Sun

CONCORD - Dick Flynn, the longtime New Hampshire Commissioner of Safety given his walking papers by Governor John Lynch, still has a few tricks up his sleeve and yesterday played one that may well scuttle the renewed effort to impose speed limits on the lakes.
At the hearing on House Bill 847, David Barrett, head of the Marine Patrol, told the House Transportation Committee that in response to petitions from residents of the eight municipalities bordering Lake Winnipesaukee, Flynn has recommended, but not yet ordered, delineating two "pilot speed zones" on the lake where speeds would be limited to 45 miles per hour in daytime and 25 miles per hour at night during the 2007 boating season.
At the initiative of the New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA) the petitions were filed last June, after legislation to impose speed limits failed in the Senate, under the statute (RSA 270:12) that requires the Commissioner of Safety to hold a public hearing on receipt of a petition and authorizes him to set operating restrictions on lakes, ponds, and rivers if they are found to be required by the public interest. A public hearing on the petition was held in Meredith on Sept 25. Testimony, pro and con, was taken over a five-hour-long period.
Barret said that Flynn was prepared to render a decision, but after learning that legislation would be introduced in the 2007 session decided to table it "in deference to the legislative process." He went on to explain that the commissioner wanted to share his recommended "decision and order" with the committee as "an additional alternative when it considers the merits of this proposed legislation" and suggested that if HB 847 were retained (held without action) by the committee, the order establishing the pilot speed zones would be implimented.
Under the rules of the House, committees may vote to retain bills introduced in the first session of the biennium for action in the second session the following year. Ironically, House Bill 162, the speed limit bill that failed last year was introduced in 2005 and retained by the House Resources, Recreation and Developement Committee, which held three public meetings on the bill at towns around Lake Winnipesaukee last summer.
The two areas selected as pilot speed zones are from Bear Island southwest to the mainland, extending to Penney Island, and from Rattlesnake Island southeast to the mainland, including Sleepers Island and extending to a line from the southwest corner of Mindge Cove.
Representative Jim Ryan (D-Franklin), who chairs the Transportation Committee, pointedly asked Barrett if Flynn was recommending that the bill be retained in committee. "Yes, we would impose the pilot zones if the bill is retained," he replied. Ryan reminded Barrett that HB847 woulds set speed limits on all lakes. Growing uneasy, Barret explained that the petitions received related only to Lake Winnipesaukee.
Sensing all mght not be what it appeared, Ryan asked if Flynn was available and when Barrett said yes, asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to fetch him while Barret asked if the Assistant Commssioner, Earl Sweeney, would do if Flynn could not be found.
When Sweeney appeared he echoed Barrett, telling the committee that the department was reluctant to issue an order knowing that a bill would come before the legislature. He went on to explain that after considering the testimony presented at the public hearing and discussing the issue with numerous individuals, the commissioner concluded that both supporters and opponents of speed limits would agree that the two areas chosen for the pilot project were reasonable locations.
The pilot speed zones, Sweeney said, would provide the department with "a summer's worth of data" as well as measure the capacity of Marine patrol to run radar on water, enforce the speed limits and prosecute offenders.
After the hearing, Ryan said that with Flynn's intervention "instead of playing two-card monte, we're playing three-card monte," explaining that the committee could not only recommend in favor or against the bill but also retain it. If the committee decided to retain the bill, he said that its report would include "a clear, unequivocal signal to the Department of Safety to implement the pilot speed zones.
Flynn's intervention aroused suspicions amoung advocates of legislation to set speed limits, who recalled that in the past Barrett had openly questioned their purpose and testified that Marine Patrol lacked the personnel and equipment to enforce them. Moreover, Barrett has indicated that boater education and existing laws, especially the "safe passage" rule requiring boats to proceed at headway speed within 150 feet of other vessels, were sufficient to ensure safety on the water.
Calling the proposal "a red herring," Jared Teutsch, president of the NHLA, said "I don't understand what this has to do with this bill, which would set a speed limit on all lakes. It is not a Lake Winnipesaukee bill." Characterizing the pilot speed zones as "a study," he said "we already have a study, Squam Lake where there are 40 mile per hour and 20 mile per hour speed lmits and we know they work. We don't need another study."
"We're not relaxing," Teutsch said. "Legislation is even more necessary." He said that Flynn's proposal "clouds the petition process." Explaining that the petitioners asked for speed limits, not a pilot project and another study. Other lake associations, he said, " have lost faith in the petition process."
Teutsch said that "playing this wild card deflated the hearing and gave the committe an out." If Flynn wanted to defer to the Legislature, he continued," he could have sat on his decision until the fate of the bill was determined."
Another insider, who asked not to be identified, remarked that lobbyists representing the New Hampshire Marine Trades Association, one of the major opponents of speed limits, were absent from yesterday's hearing and suggested they may have a hand in the course it took. Teutsch said only that "it was a strange coincidence."
The committee will make its recommendation to the House on HB 847 when it meets on Tuesday.

Silver Duck · 03-18-2007, 10:17 AM

This thread has started me doing some thinking about the FL3 area. Many times, when I go through there heading north, the number of boats coming at me (sometimes 5 or 6 abreast) make it feel like I'm driving the wrong way on Rte. 93.

I've about reached the conclusion that, speed limit or no, this might be a good candidate for a no wake area.

FLL, you live there; what's your opinion?

Silver Duck

fatlazyless · 03-18-2007, 06:50 PM

Hi Silver Duck. On busy times like sunny weekends, I like to go out to buoy 3 in a kayak and mess around in the two to three foot wakes. I have a 12' kayak that is not capable of long distances so I stay close to the shore. Always staying on the inside of the buoy for safety and have never had a problem with motorboats cutting inside the flasher buoy. Most of the time, the two opposing lanes of motorboat traffic pretty much line up like two lanes of traffic and space themselves safely apart as they pass through the narrows formed between buoy 3 and Dolly Island. That spot can be a choke point and probably as boaters get closer to it from either direction, they see it is narrow and start thinking safe boating.

There's never been a collision or accident there that I know about. Drivers can see it coming from both sides and know they had better make some space adjustments with nearby boaters before they get to the narrow area. So, probably any space jockeying takes place a few hundred yards out before they run out of lane space. Sure, it can be congested on a busy weekend. The Marine Patrol likes to stake it out during busy times looking for 150' violations, or whatever. It seems like a lot of the boaters that get 'pulled over' by the MP's are on pwc's, probably for violation of the 150' rule. A lot of boats, including the Mount Washington, go through that spot.

The go-fasts like the cigarettes and skaters tend to slow down for a look-see as their look-ahead. sight zone is impaired as it is not a straight shot thru the narrows. It can have a bit of an angle to it going from one side to the other.

On sunny weekends the area can be congested and crowded. No surprise with that but everyone just lines up and cruises through according to their boat and their comfort level.

Dave R · 03-19-2007, 11:30 AM

FLL, you took a kayak through there?!!!! Lucky to be alive, lucky to be alive...

I don't think there needs to be a no-wake zone near FL3 (yet). It's always single file and perhaps 20 to 25 MPH on both sides when I go through. Not exactly fun, but not hard to deal with. I tend to enter that area from the northeast side of FL 70 when heading north though. That helps, me because it puts me on the starboard bow of boats running astride making northbound a beeline from FL 2 and it's always good to be the stand-on vessel in places like that...

Heading south toward FL 3 is never much of a problem, I turn hard to starboard at the light and head straight for FL 80, keeping right as much as possible. If I go toward Weirs beach or Meredith, I go around the outside of Eagle Island, from one red topped spar to the next. I think everyone headed toward Weirs/Meredith westbound should do the same. Would have made FL2 a lot more pleasant to deal with prior to the no-wake zone.

03-17-2007, 06:14 AM	#1
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Safety suggests speed limit test... In today's electronic edition of the Union Leader, coverage of yesterday's hearing and a proposal by Safety to try speed limits on the Big Lake in a limited fashion this summer around Bear & Rattlesnake Islands (45 day/25 night). You can read all about it HERE. This morning's Citizen also has an article covering the same topic, written from the perspective of a different reporter. You can read this article HERE.

03-17-2007, 10:15 AM	#4
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Good Compromise Although I do not have a "fast boat", I have been totally against a lake wide speed limit, but I have not become involved much in this already too intense discussion. I feel everyone should be able to use their boat, as long as it is within the laws and in a safe manner. From experience and personal observations, I agree that the GFBL folks as a whole are very good and very safe boaters that play by the rules. "19' rentals" and rental PWC's are a real problem that should be addressed by stronger enforcement of the existing laws. The proposal for a test in specific areas of the lake is something I believe makes good sense. The MP could determine how effective and enforcable speed limits can be based upon a real use of the speed limits. More importantly to me, the fact that the limited ares have been proposed tells me that it would be feasible to have limits in some places and no limits in other places. As long as there are reasonable areas and times for people who have "fast boats" to use them in a safe manner, up to the speeds they are designed to go, then a speed limit in specified areas might be a good compromise. I see this as a potential 'win-win' situation and something everyone should think hard about. Best wishes to all for a quick Ice-Out and a safe year on the water. R2B

03-17-2007, 11:44 AM	#5
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	And yet another version.... Here is a third VERSION of the same event as reported in today's electronic edition of the Concord Monitor. It is interesting to read the subtle differences and opinions each reporter imbeds in their respective story!

03-17-2007, 03:41 PM	#6
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Laconia Daily Sun article As discussed in Dept of Safety Commissioner Flynn's recommendation, maybe the waterway between Bear Island and the mainland, and Penney Island at the south end (across from Buoy 3), and Pine Island to the north, could become the designated area for kayakers. It is two miles long and has, except for two Marinas, a relatively undeveloped shoreline on the mainland side thanks mostly to Camp Monotomy, a YWCA girl scout camp. The Bear Island side has lots of trees and island cottages. Here's the article from today's March 17, Laconia Daily Sun, from the top headline on page one. The LaDaSun is not on the internet. ................................................. Flynn makes waves around boat speed limit bill Department of Safety tells lawmakers it will impose two 'pilot speed zones' on Lake Winnpesaukee this summer if they agree to put a one-year hold on legislation that would effect all NH lakes By Michael Kitch The Laconia Daily Sun CONCORD - Dick Flynn, the longtime New Hampshire Commissioner of Safety given his walking papers by Governor John Lynch, still has a few tricks up his sleeve and yesterday played one that may well scuttle the renewed effort to impose speed limits on the lakes. At the hearing on House Bill 847, David Barrett, head of the Marine Patrol, told the House Transportation Committee that in response to petitions from residents of the eight municipalities bordering Lake Winnipesaukee, Flynn has recommended, but not yet ordered, delineating two "pilot speed zones" on the lake where speeds would be limited to 45 miles per hour in daytime and 25 miles per hour at night during the 2007 boating season. At the initiative of the New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA) the petitions were filed last June, after legislation to impose speed limits failed in the Senate, under the statute (RSA 270:12) that requires the Commissioner of Safety to hold a public hearing on receipt of a petition and authorizes him to set operating restrictions on lakes, ponds, and rivers if they are found to be required by the public interest. A public hearing on the petition was held in Meredith on Sept 25. Testimony, pro and con, was taken over a five-hour-long period. Barret said that Flynn was prepared to render a decision, but after learning that legislation would be introduced in the 2007 session decided to table it "in deference to the legislative process." He went on to explain that the commissioner wanted to share his recommended "decision and order" with the committee as "an additional alternative when it considers the merits of this proposed legislation" and suggested that if HB 847 were retained (held without action) by the committee, the order establishing the pilot speed zones would be implimented. Under the rules of the House, committees may vote to retain bills introduced in the first session of the biennium for action in the second session the following year. Ironically, House Bill 162, the speed limit bill that failed last year was introduced in 2005 and retained by the House Resources, Recreation and Developement Committee, which held three public meetings on the bill at towns around Lake Winnipesaukee last summer. The two areas selected as pilot speed zones are from Bear Island southwest to the mainland, extending to Penney Island, and from Rattlesnake Island southeast to the mainland, including Sleepers Island and extending to a line from the southwest corner of Mindge Cove. Representative Jim Ryan (D-Franklin), who chairs the Transportation Committee, pointedly asked Barrett if Flynn was recommending that the bill be retained in committee. "Yes, we would impose the pilot zones if the bill is retained," he replied. Ryan reminded Barrett that HB847 woulds set speed limits on all lakes. Growing uneasy, Barret explained that the petitions received related only to Lake Winnipesaukee. Sensing all mght not be what it appeared, Ryan asked if Flynn was available and when Barrett said yes, asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to fetch him while Barret asked if the Assistant Commssioner, Earl Sweeney, would do if Flynn could not be found. When Sweeney appeared he echoed Barrett, telling the committee that the department was reluctant to issue an order knowing that a bill would come before the legislature. He went on to explain that after considering the testimony presented at the public hearing and discussing the issue with numerous individuals, the commissioner concluded that both supporters and opponents of speed limits would agree that the two areas chosen for the pilot project were reasonable locations. The pilot speed zones, Sweeney said, would provide the department with "a summer's worth of data" as well as measure the capacity of Marine patrol to run radar on water, enforce the speed limits and prosecute offenders. After the hearing, Ryan said that with Flynn's intervention "instead of playing two-card monte, we're playing three-card monte," explaining that the committee could not only recommend in favor or against the bill but also retain it. If the committee decided to retain the bill, he said that its report would include "a clear, unequivocal signal to the Department of Safety to implement the pilot speed zones. Flynn's intervention aroused suspicions amoung advocates of legislation to set speed limits, who recalled that in the past Barrett had openly questioned their purpose and testified that Marine Patrol lacked the personnel and equipment to enforce them. Moreover, Barrett has indicated that boater education and existing laws, especially the "safe passage" rule requiring boats to proceed at headway speed within 150 feet of other vessels, were sufficient to ensure safety on the water. Calling the proposal "a red herring," Jared Teutsch, president of the NHLA, said "I don't understand what this has to do with this bill, which would set a speed limit on all lakes. It is not a Lake Winnipesaukee bill." Characterizing the pilot speed zones as "a study," he said "we already have a study, Squam Lake where there are 40 mile per hour and 20 mile per hour speed lmits and we know they work. We don't need another study." "We're not relaxing," Teutsch said. "Legislation is even more necessary." He said that Flynn's proposal "clouds the petition process." Explaining that the petitioners asked for speed limits, not a pilot project and another study. Other lake associations, he said, " have lost faith in the petition process." Teutsch said that "playing this wild card deflated the hearing and gave the committe an out." If Flynn wanted to defer to the Legislature, he continued," he could have sat on his decision until the fate of the bill was determined." Another insider, who asked not to be identified, remarked that lobbyists representing the New Hampshire Marine Trades Association, one of the major opponents of speed limits, were absent from yesterday's hearing and suggested they may have a hand in the course it took. Teutsch said only that "it was a strange coincidence." The committee will make its recommendation to the House on HB 847 when it meets on Tuesday.

03-17-2007, 09:04 AM	#2
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	That proposal makes a great deal of sense! I don't know about the Rattlesnake Isl. area, but I frequently see the same few performance boats taking advantage of the smooth, late evening water conditions between Bear Isl. and the mainland and the generaly light boat traffic during that time frame to make "speed runs". I've never felt particularly threatened by them because of the size and visibility of my boat, but I can see how people in small boats making the crossing from Bear Isl. could feel a major "pucker factor". Also, gaining some experience with trying to enforce a speed limit before trying to go live with one everywhere seems an intelligent approach. And, finally, this ought not to drive anybody off the lake! Kudos to the MP for a well thought out approach to this! Silver Duck

03-17-2007, 09:55 AM	#3
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	Those two areas are good candidates for a test area. That said, they have always been good candidate areas for speed enforcement and I'm surprised they have not been targeted (using the existing laws regarding safe operation) yet. Sounds like a good compromise, even though I'm against speed limits in general. THAT said, I can't recall ever witnessing anyone doing anything reckless through either area, certainly not at speeds over 45MPH. We've been overtaken by boats closer than 150' by Bear Island, but we were going 30 MPH or so, and the "offending" boats were probably going <40 MPH (they may have gone faster once they were beyond us though). These were not unsafe incidents, just unlawful. Didn't bother me at all. I think the 150' rule is a bit over the top, but I do appreciate the stress-free boating it provides. Winnipesaukee is such an easy and mellow place to boat due to the nearly 100% compliance (I think there's been a dramatic improvement in compliance in the last 5 years) with that law lately.

03-18-2007, 10:17 AM	#7
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	This thread has started me doing some thinking about the FL3 area. Many times, when I go through there heading north, the number of boats coming at me (sometimes 5 or 6 abreast) make it feel like I'm driving the wrong way on Rte. 93. I've about reached the conclusion that, speed limit or no, this might be a good candidate for a no wake area. FLL, you live there; what's your opinion? Silver Duck

03-18-2007, 06:50 PM	#8
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Hi Silver Duck. On busy times like sunny weekends, I like to go out to buoy 3 in a kayak and mess around in the two to three foot wakes. I have a 12' kayak that is not capable of long distances so I stay close to the shore. Always staying on the inside of the buoy for safety and have never had a problem with motorboats cutting inside the flasher buoy. Most of the time, the two opposing lanes of motorboat traffic pretty much line up like two lanes of traffic and space themselves safely apart as they pass through the narrows formed between buoy 3 and Dolly Island. That spot can be a choke point and probably as boaters get closer to it from either direction, they see it is narrow and start thinking safe boating. There's never been a collision or accident there that I know about. Drivers can see it coming from both sides and know they had better make some space adjustments with nearby boaters before they get to the narrow area. So, probably any space jockeying takes place a few hundred yards out before they run out of lane space. Sure, it can be congested on a busy weekend. The Marine Patrol likes to stake it out during busy times looking for 150' violations, or whatever. It seems like a lot of the boaters that get 'pulled over' by the MP's are on pwc's, probably for violation of the 150' rule. A lot of boats, including the Mount Washington, go through that spot. The go-fasts like the cigarettes and skaters tend to slow down for a look-see as their look-ahead. sight zone is impaired as it is not a straight shot thru the narrows. It can have a bit of an angle to it going from one side to the other. On sunny weekends the area can be congested and crowded. No surprise with that but everyone just lines up and cruises through according to their boat and their comfort level.

03-19-2007, 11:30 AM	#9
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	FLL, you took a kayak through there?!!!! Lucky to be alive, lucky to be alive... I don't think there needs to be a no-wake zone near FL3 (yet). It's always single file and perhaps 20 to 25 MPH on both sides when I go through. Not exactly fun, but not hard to deal with. I tend to enter that area from the northeast side of FL 70 when heading north though. That helps, me because it puts me on the starboard bow of boats running astride making northbound a beeline from FL 2 and it's always good to be the stand-on vessel in places like that... Heading south toward FL 3 is never much of a problem, I turn hard to starboard at the light and head straight for FL 80, keeping right as much as possible. If I go toward Weirs beach or Meredith, I go around the outside of Eagle Island, from one red topped spar to the next. I think everyone headed toward Weirs/Meredith westbound should do the same. Would have made FL2 a lot more pleasant to deal with prior to the no-wake zone.