Where is the money for HB-162 going to come from?

[Woodsy]

The House of Representatives has passed on HB-162 as an unfunded mandate to the Senate. Although it was mentioned several times during the debate, nobody from the House wanted to send this bill to the finance committee. I wonder why?

I think funding HB-162 is going to be the issue, and I have said that from the begininng.

The legislature will have to purchase 45/25 signs for every public boat launch in the state (excepting those lakes with motorized limits). That will cost an estimated $100,000 or so, with a recurring cost of $2500 or so to replace signs due to vandalism etc. While they are at it, they ought to make Boater Education Required signs as well.... but thats just me. Maybe they could incorporate both on 1 sign? No doubt they will stick to the federal speed limit sign design.

Lets assume the MP buys 6 guns at $1200 each... thats about $7200. Not all that big of an expense, and the recurring costs of replacement and calibration will run about $300 or so per gun per year, again, not a huge expense. I used 6, as on the assumption that they will need 2 for Seacoast, 2 For Lake Winnipesaukee, and 2 to roam the other lakes of the state. They may purchase more, but its more of manpower issue.

Now here is the big expense.... TRAINING! In order for a court to recognize a speeding ticket resulting from using radar in NH, a NH State Trooper has to complete a 2 week radar training course at the State Police Academy. Because HB-162 ties speeding tickets issued on the water to your drivers license, the MP will have to conform to the same standard. The kicker is the MP only have 15 full time officers. They hire approximately 100 part-timers for the summer. Now if they send just those 15 to the two week radar training course, you are looking at 30 weeks of salary (2 weeks per officer), plus the whatever the cost of the course is per officer. I am conservatively estimating that cost to be about $80,000 to $100,000 for the 15 officers. I doubt the MP would spend the money to radar train the PT officers.

Lets assume they split up the 15 officers equally. 5 for the Seacoast, 5 roaming, and 5 for Lake Winnipesaukee. Given that the MP in the summer is pretty much a 24-7 job, its a pretty safe assumption that on the busiest of summer weekends, no more than 2 radar qualified officers (and more than likely only 1) will be operating on Lake Winnipesaukee at any given time.

Now for the real costs.... Court time! Whomever is issued a speeding ticket, will no doubt fight it. The costs of paying the MP officer overtime, the costs of the court (judges, clerks etc) will easily exceed another $100,000 or so per year, recurring.

Every lawyer in the state that wants to make some easy money representing boat speeding cases will have a copy of the letter obtained by NHRBA from Kustom Signals on file that specifically states thier radar isn't accurate at distances greater than 1/4 mile etc etc. No doubt securing a dismissal of the speeding ticket.

The MP will have to issue a similar number of tickets to family boats as it does to Hi-performance boats. Otherwise thats profiling, and we all know how well that goes over with the courts.

So the breakdown is as such...

$100,000 for signage (initial cost)
$2500/yr (recurring signage cost)
$7200 for radar guns (initial cost)
$1800/yr (recurring radar costs)
$90000 (initial radar training for 15 FT MP officers)
$100,000 (recurring court costs)

Total startup costs... $297,200
Recurring costs per year... $104,300

I am sure I didn't factor in all of the costs. But the numbers are pretty high. I wonder where the money is going to come from?

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

I would certainly be willing to pay an annual registration fee for my kayak to help pay for the costs associated with enforcing this speed limit. This seems only fair. Currently non-motor kayaks and canoes (and smaller sailboats) are not required to be registered in NH.

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Where is the money for HB-162 going to come from?

Ahhh your property tax im sure

[Rayhunt]

Maybe the proponents can fund it ?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The legislature will have to purchase 45/25 signs for every public boat launch in the state (excepting those lakes with motorized limits). That will cost an estimated $100,000 or so, with a recurring cost of $2500 or so to replace signs due to vandalism etc...I am sure I didn't factor in all of the costs. But the numbers are pretty high. I wonder where the money is going to come from?" Woodsy

Two thoughts:

1) Should initiative HB162 not survive the Senate, has anyone considered the effect on www.winnipesaukee.com/forum? (This forum?)

With Lake Winnipesaukee's sensibilities rubbed raw by HB162, the boating season will deluge this site with "Cap'n B" and "Cowboy" excesses. Our Webmaster will be kept very busy. IMO.

2) Now why would the State consider such a large expenditure for vandalism of speed limit signs?

[Fat Jack]

Whose the one using scare tactics now?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The legislature will have to purchase 45/25 signs for every public boat launch in the state (excepting those lakes with motorized limits). That will cost an estimated $100,000 or so, with a recurring cost of $2500 or so to replace signs due to vandalism etc.

We have boating laws that require almost every boater to have certification...no signs. We have the 150 foot rule...no signs. We have a myriad of other laws specific to NH that boaters are responsible to know (ignorance is no excuse), yet we have no signs at our ramps. Suddenly, for the speed limit, we need all these signs....Why? Is it just to make HB162 sound expensive?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

they will need 2 (guns) for Seacoast

While I agree that the cost of these guns is not a serious expense...they will be paid for after only a couple of citations...wasn't the Seacoast already removed from the bill? And where in all of your calculations do you add in the income from fines and the HUGE economic boost that the state will realize from all of this?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Now if they send just those 15 to the two week radar training course, you are looking at 30 weeks of salary (2 weeks per officer)

Not that I concede to the rest of your logic, but as to just this issue, rather than having those officers sitting in Glendale polishing their shoes in February, while receiving full pay, and then sending them to training in the summer time, as you seem to be suggesting, why not send them to training in the off season as other marine law enforcement agencies do? What better use of their winter salary than to have them in training to improve their policing skills?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Lets assume they split up the 15 officers equally. 5 for the Seacoast, 5 roaming, and 5 for Lake Winnipesaukee. Given that the MP in the summer is pretty much a 24-7 job, its a pretty safe assumption that on the busiest of summer weekends, no more than 2 radar qualified officers (and more than likely only 1) will be operating on Lake Winnipesaukee at any given time.

Again the scare tactics. First, recall that I am not buying into any of this logic, and the Seacoast is out…we need no officers there. But for only the sake of argument, as you are getting ready to head out in the Donzi, do you know for sure whether we have all 15 guns on Winnipesaukee today, or only ten? Do you feel lucky? Do we really need a gun in every boat and in every cove to make would-be offenders behave?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Now for the real costs.... Court time! Whomever is issued a speeding ticket, will no doubt fight it. The costs of paying the MP officer overtime, the costs of the court (judges, clerks etc) will easily exceed another $100,000 or so per year, recurring.

Again, you ignore the income. Other lakes have all realized a perfect conviction record. You have already charged us for training and calibration to be sure we can have the same record, so we hit these lawbreakers for $500 a whack and we are actually making money. Besides all teh money the sate brings in from having real money-spending tourists using the lake again. Since there are only supposed to be a few of these really fast boats anyway (according to your side) citations are going to drop off almost instantly as soon as the first citations are issued…then the overtime is gone, but the benefits of the law remain….forever.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Every lawyer in the state that wants to make some easy money representing boat speeding cases will have a copy of the letter obtained by NHRBA from Kustom Signals on file that specifically states their radar isn't accurate at distances greater than 1/4 mile etc etc. No doubt securing a dismissal of the speeding ticket.

Please show us this letter…I’ve contacted Kustom and they deny making any such broad statement. While all radar uses the same technology and is subject to the same limitations, I’ve never gotten out of an auto speeding limit by challenging the radar’s accuracy…have you?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The MP will have to issue a similar number of tickets to family boats as it does to Hi-performance boats. Otherwise thats profiling, and we all know how well that goes over with the courts.

Nice try. Is this part of the same “discrimination” argument that has so far failed so miserably? Which of the protected classes are really fast boat drivers in?

[fatlazyless]

"Which of the protected classes are the really fast boat drivers in?"

They are in the truly lazy class! I have seen so many times some one guy in a big gf-bl make it go maybe 70mph in a straight line and just go straight. I just don't get it. Too lazy to paddle a kayak, to learn to sail, to row a rowboat, to take up fishing, to cruise around slowly and look at the great scenery. It's real weird, all they want to do is bomb around at very high speeds and just push that throttle down and roar ahead, yeah!

[Island Lover]

HB162 doesn't require ANY expenditures. We have plenty of other boating laws and none of them are posted on boat ramps. I have run into more than one person, including a long time island resident, that had no idea about safe boating certificate requirements. The word will get around, and if the MP stops you I'm sure a real good blank face will mean a warning instead of a ticket.

Anyway one sign down on rt93 would be seen by 90% of the lakes community if they did want to put up a sign.

The MP might get a radar unit. One is probably enough so they can make a show of it on a busy weekend. But even if they don't get any radar, the officers estimation is good in court. It doesn't take electronics to tell when a boat is going 90 in a 45 zone.

Most boaters are law abiding, they will obey the law because it is the law, not because they are afraid of the MP. OK they might stretch 45 into 55, just like they do on the highways.

Every now and then somebody will open it up on the broads... so what!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

HB162 doesn't require ANY expenditures.

I think that you are the only one that believes that...What good is a speed limit unless they have some sort of intention to enforce it? If in fact they do put it to law and do not follow through it will create a greater disregard for boating laws. It would not take long for the word to get out that it is all just worthless paper before things would be back to where they are now.

How can you state the most boaters are law abiding citizens when you provide instances in which boaters do not even know the laws? How do you abide by something that you do not even know exists???

I hope that the Senate realizes what this truly entails instead of falling prey to scare tactics, smoke and mirrors, and hidden agendas. Woodsy brought up many good points regarding true costs. Where will it come from???

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The MP might get a radar unit. One is probably enough so they can make a show of it on a busy weekend. But even if they don't get any radar, the officers estimation is good in court. It doesn't take electronics to tell when a boat is going 90 in a 45 zone.

An officers estimation is not concrete in court. If electronics are not needed then why did they not go with the alternative bill which did not use actual limits?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Most boaters are law abiding, they will obey the law because it is the law, not because they are afraid of the MP. OK they might stretch 45 into 55, just like they do on the highways.

I would presume that most - if not all boaters are also drivers on roads. Why is it then that the State sees the need to have State Police and Motor Vehicle officers out in full force on the highways issuing speeding tickets? Aren't these the same people that will obey the 45mph speed limit on the water?

[fatlazyless]

As you probably know, the Marine Patrol are sworn New Hampshire police officers who are held to a high level of professionalism. What that means is they do indeed maintain a high level of honesty. They don't make stuff up, or lie, or say something happened that, in fact, did not. They see what they saw, and nothing more, and are honest about it, that's professionalism

As you also probably know, the MP's have 15 different patrol boats for Lake Winnipesaukee, and other boats for Newfound, Winnisquam, Squam, Little Squam, Sunapee, Ossipee, Wentworth, Umbagog, Frances and roving MP officers for the many other lakes. So, as you probably know, a speed limit is just one more tool in their tool box.

They are already out there, so just the sight of a patrol boat would have a deterrant effect on someone thinking about speeding.

Do you know what a difference in your next three year's car insurance bill, just one speeding tickets will make? I do! I got one speeding ticket for being about 10-15 miles over in October 2004 on the way back from the Mount Washington-Halloween Ball, and it's costing me an extra $500./year for three years. I was actually going faster and the Thornton cop was very nice to let me off with the lesser violation. Goodbye to my good driver discount for three years but it could have been worse.

[Woodsy]

APS...

If you want to knock down the $2500 for recurring sign costs, so be it. It isn't all that big of an expense. I am assuming that like highway signs, some will be stolen, some will also be damaged by some bonehead who doesn't know how to drive a vehicle towing a trailer. One of my favorite pastimes is watching the sunday afternoon follies at the Meredith Boat Ramp.

Fat Jack...

Scare tactics? I don't think so. You are (AGAIN) wrong about the signs. You know, for someone who claims to be the most educated NH citizen (last I checked you lived in MA) on Speed Limits, I would have expected you to know what signs are actually posted on our public boat launches here on Lake Winnipesaukee. There are no signs required at all on private boat launches. If you go to the public boat launches, there is a really, really small sign for the 150' Safe passage Law. There is also a small sign about being careful for divers, and a really big one for milfoil. There are NO signs informing anyone about the requirement for a SAFE BOATING CERTIFICATE. I have mentioned this to several of the reps I talked with, and they thought it was rather odd that there were no signs that spoke to that requirement.

You speak of wanting better boating safety, yet you oppose spending the money for signage? How are people supposed to be informed? Word of mouth? Perhaps by the MP when they get stopped for a violation they didn't know about? How is the ever important day tripper or the golden goose tourist supposed to know? The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

Your statement that "the Seacoast is out…we need no officers there" is a blatently ignorant statement. We only have 15 FT Marine Patrol Officers, most of whom spend thier winter enforcing the laws on the seacoast, specifically Newcastle, most often tasked to harbor patrol in Portsmouth. They are not "polishing thier shoes in Glendale" as you so aptly stated. Your lack of respect for the MP is clearly evident in your statements. Are you suggesting that all of the senior FT MP officers should be posted to Lake Winnipesaukee during the summer busy season, leaving nothing but PT officers to patrol the Seacoast and the rest of the state? As I stated above, its a manpower/resources issue. The House passed an amendment to remove the Ocean from the bill... The many rivers along the coast along with the entire Great Bay estuary is still covered by the proposed law and will need equal enforcement. Did you forget about the Piscatiqua River (sp)? You know, the river we share with Maine? It was discussed in the debate. However, the House refused to delineate where the oceans boundary actually begins. There was no wording in that amendment that limited the law to "navigable freshwater lakes and rivers".

You speak of income derived from speeding tickets? Your implying that the amount of speeding tickets issued by the MP will cover the costs incurred? You have got to be kidding me! That statement isn't true of speeding tickets issued by NH State Police, and they issue alot more tickets than the MP ever will. Your also assuming that the boat speeding ticket holds up in court. It will be interesting to see how a judge decides the case when you have a letter from the manufacturer saying the unit is inaccurate, and states the reasons why its inaccurate. Your much touted Lake George, by thier own admission only wrote 5-6 tickets for speeding last year. According to my source (somewhat reliable, but not foolproof) the tickets issued weren't for going over 45 MPH, but for PWC's speeding (on plane) within 500' of shore. The House also did not delineate a fee structure in HB-162. As of right now a ticket may count against your license, but they did not set the fines for speeding. I highly doubt it will be $500 per offense as you suggest. I am sure it will be more along the line of a graduated fee structure like we have in place for cars. That language needs to be included in the bill before it becomes law. Most of the money derived from automobile speeding offenses goes to the SP Academy, Court admistration costs, and the State General Fund, I assume the same will apply to speeding tickets issued by the MP. I highly doubt any money will be kicked back to the MP at all. HB-162 will cost approximately $100,000 per year in officer overtime and court costs.

There will not be a huge economic boost. Prior to 9/11 and the subsequent higher fuel prices, the hotels on this Lake were close to capacity all summer. With the exception of Church Landing, there hasn't been any new hotels built on the Lake. In fact there has been a huge reduction of rentable hotel rooms as alot of the mom & pop motels have been sold and have converted to condos. The marinas around the lake are pretty much at capacity as well. So where do you think this huge additional economic boost will come from? I am interested to know!

As far as the training goes, it really doesn't matter when it occurs. I did not imply that the training would occur during the busy summer season. I assume it will be during the off season, or just before ice out, as some on the water training will be required. The on-water training will have to occur on a fresh water source as the water density is different from salt water and it will effect the radar unit. because you just can't send everyone away to class in february, they will probably need to run the MP's thru 3 classes at 5 men each. The cost is still 30 weeks of salary for the 15 officers, plus whatever the cost is for the class at the SP Academy, I stand by my estimate of $80,000 to $100,000.

I did get a speeding ticket dismissed because I challenged the units accuracy. In fact the unit had not been recalibrated in well over a year. It was a small handheld unit in use by a local police force. The officer admitted to dropping it earlier that day as well. As far as your statement as to wit "do I feel lucky"... I am not really all that concerned about it. If HB-162 passes I can go and buy a radar detector if I feel so inclined. I can also sell the Donzi and get a cabin cruiser instead. Maybe I will get a nice twin outboard center console fish boat? I am not leaving either way.

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Which of the protected classes are the really fast boat drivers in?"

They are in the truly lazy class! I have seen so many times some one guy in a big gf-bl make it go maybe 70mph in a straight line and just go straight. I just don't get it. Too lazy to paddle a kayak, to learn to sail, to row a rowboat, to take up fishing, to cruise around slowly and look at the great scenery. It's real weird, all they want to do is bomb around at very high speeds and just push that throttle down and roar ahead, yeah!

There you go again and insult a certain class. I can assure you that someone who has a spare $400 grand to drop on boat did,t get to where they are by being lazy.In fact,we probably spend more time cleaning,polishing and detailing our boats more than all the other boaters combined.We are far from being lazy.
As far as how we enjoy our boats? Most of the time, I just cruise around at 50 mph ish and enjoy the scenery.Once in a while, I might go 90 for a few seconds.But,most of all, I just put,put put out to the lake,throw the anchor out and enjoy!.Just because the boat will do 90 doesn,t mean that I do it all the time.As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand how many times I went 90 last season.(all by the way, in the broads)
So,please think before you start insulting and labeling a certain class of people.

[Bear Lover]

I guess none of the other opposition arguments worked with the House, so now we have the "it will cost a fortune" argument being tried on the Senate.

As pointed out, it doesn't have to cost one dime. This speed limit has gotten a lot of press, if it passes it will get even more. Signs would be a waste of money. NH enacts many laws without putting up signs to tell people about it.

When you register a boat you have to read, check off a few things, and sign the back of the return copy. Just add one more check off next year to tell people there is a speed limit. The printing change should cost little or nothing. People trailering in from other states have the responsibility to find out what the rules are in NH. In the very rare case of somebody not getting the word, all the people that will be waving at them, or the boat with the flashing blue light will inform them of their error.

Minor violations will be common, however not as common as minimum safe passage violations. Serious violations will be handled during the regular course of business by the MP.

Having 15 officers trained to use RADAR is absurd! One existing full time officer and one marine RADAR is the MOST that will be needed. He can set up at various times and locations on Winnipesaukee. If any other lakes report a speeding problem he can pay them a visit.

If, after a season or two, speeding is an enforcement problem then the MP can make a case for more training and equipment. I think this is VERY unlikely.

Lets not make a mountain out of this mole hill.

[Woodsy]

I believed that the motivation behind alot of the people who supported HB-162 truly was safety and nothing else, even though I strongly disagreed about how to go about it. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "what price safety?" or "if not now, when?". I have mentioned my concerns about the costs associated with HB-162 before, and to be honest they were completely ignored by the WinnFabs crowd. In fact those concerns were completely ignored by the House of Representatives, who chose to pass on HB-162 as an unfunded mandate to the Senate, even though it was mentioned during the debate that HB-162 should be remanded to the Finance Committee, in order to determine possible avenues for funding. Now that I have opened up a dialougue to ponder how we are going to fund HB-162 it seems I was mistaken in my belief that HB-162 is really about improving boater safety.

It seems to me that nobody from the Pro HB-162 crowd wants to discuss how to actually pay for it.

Bear Lover...

Oh my head! Your kidding right? All of those posts in defense of HB-162, I cannot believe you are actually advocating we only train and equip 1 officer? For the entire state? Talk about making HB-162 unenforceable! You don't think we need to put up signs telling people that NH may have a speed limit, and what that number is? It sure works that way on the roadways. I am not advocating floating signs in the middle of the lakes & rivers, but certainly at the minimum signs should be required at public boat launches. No need to tell anyone about the Boater Safety Certificate requirement either? You actually think that 1 trained officer is going to make a difference in safety on the states waterways?

I fail to see how training just 1 MP officer is in the best interests of "SAFETY". Everybody seems to be pretty much in agreement that we need to lessen the chance of running into Capt. Bonehead. Safety and courtesy need to be taught. Education is the key. You didn't learn that the stove was hot to touch because you touched it and burned yourself, you learned that because your parents told you so. Thats called education. NH has a Safe Boater Certification requirement, yet as posted by Island Lover above, not everyone knows about it. Thats because there are no signs to indicate that a Safe Boater Certificate is REQUIRED in NH. If its not posted, how is someone to know? The same goes for speed limit signage. The only defense against ignorance of a law is education. The only way to educate people, the tourists and day trippers and other people who do not actually own property on the any of the lakes and waterways or register thier boats in NH is through signs and ads in publications ie: newspapers. That costs money. Relying on somebody to wave thier arms at another boat is absurd.

Where is the money going to come from WinnFabs? I am sure you guys have to have at least some suggestions?

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[codeman671]

This is abolutely absurd that Pro-HB162 people would push so hard to have this enacted yet expect a piece of paper in a law book to fix all problems without enforcement. One gun and operator for an entire state? If that is truly what Pillod and Winnfabbs are asking for then this will all dry up and blow away. If you sincerely want a difference made then you'd better figure out a way to equip MP to do the job properly and stop criticizing them. All we need is another pathetic, non-enforced law...I am still obviously against this but if it is to be then so be it. But be prepared to back it up or back off.

Maybe I will buy that Fountain after all...

[Fat Jack]

Here's a great article that should calm any fears about the cost of enforcement;
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN

I guess if they are finding that giving warnings and only a handful of tickets based on radar readings and officer observations is good enough to make the identical law work there, we should expect to find the same here, no? Or is their water "denser" there too? And they are not spending "hundreds of thousands" on training and overtime and signs.
I've also been speaking to radar manufacturers, including Kustom, and to enforcement officials outside of Glendale, including our own SP. In fact, the basic radar training course, good enough for certification, is only 8 hours, not two weeks. Or else, they can send one officer through a two week program where he/she can then become a qualified instructor and can then train our other officers in the field, for free, while they are out on the lake protecting us and earning that salary.
And I called over to Glendale to see how many officers they have at the seacoast today...none. So those officers, who are being paid today, could be doing their 8 hour course right now and not losing a minute of protecting us.

Denser water??? Are we looking for submarines now?

BL hit it right on the head...all the other lame arguments and scare tactics did not work; discrimination against fast boaters, live fast or die, unenforcebility, ineffectiveness, bad for the economy, inability to plane, shore erosion, cancer from radar waves, etc...so now they are resorting to this latest Johnny Cochoran attempt to create a shadow of a doubt. It will not work either.
The people who own NH's lakes, by a huge margin, want speed limits on them. Woodsy and his group are in a very tiny, but very vocal, minority, who is also in the wrong, but refuses to admit that and accept the inevitable. In the end, the people of NH should have what they want on the lakes they own...reasonable and safe limits on boating speeds.

I live in MA????

[NHBUOY]

...speaking of money...Do you guys realize what is going to happen to the upper end property values...?!?!...The RE market will take a dive...look at the values right now & I will be curious to see how far they plummet in the coming months...I know they are "artificailly" high, but, the number of listings for these properties has sky-rocketted...I think if the selfish people get what they want (speed limit), it WILL be back to the (perceived) good-ol-day$...As the rich man goes...so goes the neighborhood...I can hear all the pro-speed limit folks having a conversation with there RE broker to list there quiet & serene lake front properties...Whatyameanit's only worth...xxxxxx WHAT???!!!...Careful what you wish for...Lower property values AND higher taxes...What a concept...

[Islander]

This argument is getting silly. There is no requirement that signs be erected to explain new laws. NH boaters will find out when they register their boats. Most of the people that trailer high performance boats from out of state will already have heard about the speed limit. We are not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell a handful of people what they should already know before they launch their boat.

The motor vehicle laws vary greatly from state to state. When trailering a boat the requirements for maximum weight per axle, safety chains, surge brakes etc. are different in many states. It's the drivers responsibility to know this and abide by it or run the risk of a ticket. The same is true of boating regulations.

Speed limits are posted on highways because they change from place to place. HB162 will be the same in all of New Hampshire.

The opponents have told us many times that only a small percentage of boats can go over 55 or 60 mph. It will not take 15 Marine Patrol Officers running around the lake with 15 radar guns to keep these few boats in check.

There are only a handful of lakes in the state large enough for performance boats. One or two radar units and officers can easily handle this.

Why are the people that are against HB162 so insistent that it must be enforced to the Nth degree by a small army of Marine Patrol?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by NHBUOY

...speaking of money...Do you guys realize what is going to happen to the upper end property values...?!?!...The RE market will take a dive...look at the values right now & I will be curious to see how far they plummet in the coming months...I know they are "artificailly" high, but, the number of listings for these properties has sky-rocketted...I think if the selfish people get what they want (speed limit), it WILL be back to the (perceived) good-ol-day$...As the rich man goes...so goes the neighborhood...I can hear all the pro-speed limit folks having a conversation with there RE broker to list there quiet & serene lake front properties...Whatyameanit's only worth...xxxxxx WHAT???!!!...Careful what you wish for...Lower property values AND higher taxes...What a concept...

Most of the "experts" disagree with you.

Most of the local Real Estate companies and organizations support HB162. So do most local restaurants and hotels and 11 marinas.

They claim the lake is becoming less friendly to family tourism because of boating congestion and operator fear.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Most of the "experts" disagree with you.

Most of the local Real Estate companies and organizations support HB162. So do most local restaurants and hotels and 11 marinas.

They claim the lake is becoming less friendly to family tourism because of boating congestion and operator fear.

The key word there is " congestion."

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

I tend to agree with you about the property values. I really don't think HB-162 is going to affect them at all. The values are dropping somewhat, but there is still a pretty big demand for property here in the Lakes region. Supply & Demand rules the real estate market, influenced by property tax rates. Boating laws will have little to no effect.

Fat Jack...

Last I checked fresh water was significantly denser than salt water. But maybe in your world physics doesn't apply? Perhaps the sky is a nice emerald green there too? Of course the way radar works is bouncing a radar wave off of a dense object... metal reflects the best. The less dense the object, the less of a radar return. But I forgot Fat Jack... you probably already know that. After all your NH most educated citizen in regards to the speed limit!

You bring up Lake George yet again. The Lake George State Park Commission spent ALOT of money in "start up" costs when they implemented thier speed limit. In order to boat on Lake George you need to get a sticker.... EVERY BOAT ON LAKE GEORGE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS STICKER. When you purchase this sticker, you get a brochure, explaining all of the rules and regulations of Lake George State Park, including the speed limit. There are no boats allowed on Lake George without this sticker. Its a very quick visual check, and because of the brochure ignorance of the speed limit isn't an excuse there. They don't actively enforce the speed limit on Lake George, per thier admission to only 5-6 tickets per year. Per HB-162 here in NH, and specifically Lake Winnipesaukee, we do not have this "sticker" requirement. HB-162 does not provide ANY funding for training, enforcement, court fees or signage. We do not have anything that tells visitors to Lake Winnipesaukee any of the boating rules and regulations.

I also don't think that any of the Winnfabs would be happy if the NH Marine Patrol only issued 5-6 tickets per year. I think quite frankly you guys would be screaming for Director Barretts head on a silver platter! I am sure judging by Fat jacks prior posts in other threads he already is!

I checked the voter registration list in Meredith and you weren't listed. Your old profile listed Upton MA and Meredith NH. Maybe I should check some other sources? If you moved up here permanently, congrats! Once the ice freezes over I will be sure to swing by on the snowmobile and say hello! We can share a laugh or two over this whole mess!

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Fat Jack...Last I checked fresh water was significantly denser than salt water. But maybe in your world physics doesn't apply? Perhaps the sky is a nice emerald green there too?

Woodsy,
Since it is not relevant to anything having to do with the speed limit to anyone except you, I don't want to get dragged any further into a discussion about water densities...but you should be sure you know what you are talking about before you start insulting others about their lack of intelligence. I learned in 4th grade that salt water is denser than fresh water. I recall pictures of people bobbing in Great Salt Lake. Here's a refresher for you;
http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/...ces/water2.htm
But let's forget about the whole density argument. It has no relevance unless the water is the object that one is trying to measure. HB162 is about boat speeds, not water speeds. You might want to edit you post before too many people read it.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Of course the way radar works is bouncing a radar wave off of a dense object...

Exactly...like a boat. Does a boat's density change when you put it into salt water?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

They don't actively enforce the speed limit on Lake George

Exactly the point...they found that they did not need to. Since most US citizens are law abiders, LG, like all other lakes and states where boating speed limits were enacted, found that the mere existence of the law and the possibility of a stiff penalty was enough to make the speeding problem drop instantly to a tolerable level. I'm not going to judge the success of HB162 by the number of tickets issued, I will judge it by the return of sanity to boating on the lake.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I checked the voter registration list in Meredith and you weren't listed. Your old profile listed Upton MA and Meredith NH.

????? I just can't figure you guys out with this stuff. Try Wolfeboro if you really can't sleep until you figure out who I am. I saw that thread on the OSO site where you are all wrongly guessing the identity of a fellow there and even posted his phone number. Please don't post mine if you figure it out. But why do you need to know who I am? What do you plan to do with that? What other covert spying operations do you guys have going? Should I get security cameras? I have no need to know who you are...I only care about being safe when I head out onto the lake in '07.
FJ

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

... Since most US citizens are law abiders, LG, like all other lakes and states where boating speed limits were enacted...

According to the government about 89% of motorists violate the 55 MPH speed limit and 63% violate the 65 MPH speed limit. This happens with massive enforcement. So these same people will magically obey the water speed limit with little enforcement?

[Woodsy]

FJ...

Your right... I got the water density backwards! Who would have thought I would be saying that to you? LOL! But my point remains valid, there is a density difference, and because there is a density difference the amount of radar energy absorbed & reflected by the water will be different. The boats density will not change from saltwater to freshwater, but the radar reflectivity of the water will change.

One interesting tidbit I found doing some of my research. I pinged my old boss @ MIT/Lincoln Labs... this is what he responded with:

Radar does not travel over water without degradation, like it does over land. Water absorbs a lot of the microwave energy and provides shorter operating ranges. Over land, hand held radar can detect and display a vehicle's speed over 1 mile away. Over water, hand held radar has a much shorter operating range, typically in the 1/4 to 1/2 mile range. Personal water craft have an even shorter range due to the overall size of the craft and all the water spray.

I completely disagree with you and your opinion of Lake George and how & why they do things. I doubt very seriously if you have ever boated there. They do not enforce the speed limit at all. You say its because they don't have to? Thats a pretty unlikely scenario given the way people drive on the roadways. I have witnessed alot of speeding boats on Lake George and watched the MP there do nothing. Now if your boat happens to be noisy on Lake George, they are pretty much right there on top of you. However, Lake Winnipesaukee isn't Lake George. I highly doubt the Winnfabs crowd will be content with 5-6 speeding tickets issued per year by our MP.

There still has not been any coherent funding proposition put forth by the Pro HB-162/Winnfabs crowd, with the exception being Evenstar, who thought it only fair that canoes & kayaks be registered.

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

FJ...There still has not been any coherent funding proposition put forth by the Winnfabs crowd, with the exception being Evenstar, who thought it only fair that canoes & kayaks be registered.

Hey, I'm not part of "the Winnfabs crowd" - I'm just a full-time college student, who likes to kayak on big lakes.

[Woodsy]

Sorry about that... I was using Winnfabs instead of writing Pro HB-162 crowd. I will correct my post.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Islander

This argument is getting silly. There is no requirement that signs be erected to explain new laws. NH boaters will find out when they register their boats. Most of the people that trailer high performance boats from out of state will already have heard about the speed limit. We are not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell a handful of people what they should already know before they launch their boat.

The motor vehicle laws vary greatly from state to state. When trailering a boat the requirements for maximum weight per axle, safety chains, surge brakes etc. are different in many states. It's the drivers responsibility to know this and abide by it or run the risk of a ticket. The same is true of boating regulations.

Speed limits are posted on highways because they change from place to place. HB162 will be the same in all of New Hampshire.

The opponents have told us many times that only a small percentage of boats can go over 55 or 60 mph. It will not take 15 Marine Patrol Officers running around the lake with 15 radar guns to keep these few boats in check.

There are only a handful of lakes in the state large enough for performance boats. One or two radar units and officers can easily handle this.

Why are the people that are against HB162 so insistent that it must be enforced to the Nth degree by a small army of Marine Patrol?

So they can come up with a big dollar number to scare the Senate with.

When it passes they will be arguing AGAINST rigid enforcement.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

So they can come up with a big dollar number to scare the Senate with.

When it passes they will be arguing AGAINST rigid enforcement.

Tell you what, I'm sick and tired of my taxes funding all this liberal, feel good, useless legislation. Let them send you and the other HB 162 supporters the bills for these added expenses. I'm sure Rusty and the gang in Meredith will have so much extra tourist revenue because the lake will be so safe now that they'll gladly open their wallets to fund this nonsense. Just like Burger King - have it your way (but you pay for it, not me).

[Woodsy]

I really don't see the issue here. I don't think the Senate is going to be all that put off by the costs of enforcement. I am pretty sure it is the the House of Representatives that will have to find the money to pay for HB-162. They are the ones who control the purse strings. I don't think the Senate has much control over financials other than approval. I am just wondering how they intend to pay for it.

The MP only has 15 FT officers, and hires approximately 100 PT officers for the summer. Spending the money to train PT officers is a waste of money, given the high attrition rate of 25%. As for training the 15 FT MP officers, I think its the best thing to do. If we only train one officer in the use of radar, thats only 1, 8 hour shift per day, located anywhere in the state, for 5 out of 7 days a week. That is essentially not enforcing HB-162 at all. If we train all 15 officers, then we start to see coverage of at least 1 radar trained officer on Lake Winnipesaukee per shift, just about every day in the summer. You need a team of about 5 radar trained officers dedicated to Lake Winnipesaukee just to maintain 1 radar trained officer per 8hr shift every day in the summer. I am assuming 3, 8 hour shifts per day. Training the 15 officers also gives the MP the opportunity to put 2 radar trained officers per shift on lake Winnipesaukee during the busy July 4th and Labor Day weekends. This leaves the other officers free to cover the other parts of the state covered by HB-162, and allows for flexible scheduling for the MP.

You guys keep saying that signs aren't required, and that its the operators responsibility to know the law. You guys keep bringing up the myriad of boating laws that are specific to NH that have little if any signage. With the exception of BWI, any violation of those laws results in a fine. None of those violations are tagged to your motor vehicle record (driver's license).

How many Judges, acting fairly, are going to hand out $500 speeding fines (as proposed by Fat Jack and others) and ding a persons driving record with the resultant insurance rate penalty for a violation that has not been widely defined or explained to resident and non-resident individuals? The state bears the responsibility to inform people of the new law.

Here is a prime example of how education works...

You are leaving the lake driving south from NH to MA down the Everett Turnpike to Rt 3, when you get to the MA border there is a sign informing you that seatbelt use is required in MA. NH doesn't have a seatbelt law, but MA is educating all of those drivers as to what is expected of them as they drive in MA. Those signs are there at every major border crossing in MA. If those signs weren't there how would anyone who lives in NH know the law existed?

It has been the contention of many in this post that most people are law abiding. I tend to agree. However, people cannot obey a law they know nothing about. Island Lover proves this point in his post above. I think signage about our Boater Education Certificate requirement and if HB-162 should pass the speed limit, should be required at all public boat launches, town docks and all marina gas docks. Education is the key to eliminating ignorant behavior, and unfortunately education costs money. If person launches thier boat, they will see a sign. When they get gas for thier boat, they will see a sign. When they visit other communities on the lake, they will see a sign. When they rent a boat or PWC, they will see a sign (as well as fill out the questionaire) Signage is an extremely important part of educating a motor vehicle operator as to what behavior is appropriate and expected. I seriously doubt a judge is going to levy a $500 fine and ding a persons drivers license for what is essentially an unposted speed limit.

Quite frankly, I think that if we had signs explaining our SBC requirement, and the 150' rule posted at public launches, town docks and gas docks we would have a lot less issues with Capt. Bonehead.

Everybody has alot of Capt. Bonehead stories, but nobody wants to pay to educate him? Thats kind of funny. Your saying you want safety, but you don't want to have to pay for it?

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Everybody has alot of Capt. Bonehead stories, but nobody wants to pay to educate him? Thats kind of funny. Your saying you want safety, but you don't want to have to pay for it?

Good point Woodsy - just more proof that this issue is not really about safety, but rather "cleansing" the lake of certain undesirable types of boaters. The truth will surface as time goes on.

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

Your argument is under the assumption that a MP officer if will give someone a ticket instead of a warning if that person has a plausible explanation as to why they didn't know about the new law. I disagree, there will obviously be a "break in period" when the MP are going to give warnings instead of tickets except in the most flagrant violations. I doubt if anybody will get a ticket the first time they are stopped with an out of state registration. Really this is an entire mountain range being made out of a mole hill.

You also assume that a judge would not give somebody a break for not knowing about a new law.

The MP are pretty good at what they do. Like most law enforcement officers the can tell the difference between a genuine excuse and a con job. Didn't you watch "Cops" on TV?

Although the law will be 45 mph I would not say there was an "enforcement problem" until boats are going 60 or more. Only a very small percentage of boats can go that fast. Most NH lakes do not have public access and almost all are to small to attract a boat like that. This idea that the MP will need to be traveling around the state with radar to small lakes is beyond the absurd.

You are also forgetting that the MP do not need radar to give speeders tickets. How well these tickets will hold up in court is not the point.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Although the law will be 45 mph I would not say there was an "enforcement problem" until boats are going 60 or more. Only a very small percentage of boats can go that fast. Most NH lakes do not have public access and almost all are to small to attract a boat like that.

It's interesting to note that most references to speed (speeding boats) seem to imply that the only vessels that are capable of speeds equal to or in excess of the 45mph speed limit are just a small percentage of (read - cigarette style) boats. One of the representatives in the HB162 hearing stated that only a couple of hundred boats would be affected by the bill. That is not the case. Most of the 3-passenger watercraft, the jet boats, and I'm sure several styles of boats other than cigarette style are capable of speeds far greater than 45mph. I think it's just further proof that the issue is not speed itself, but rather the type of boat doing the speeding. I've rarely seen any concern expressed by HB162 supporters over the fact that a 3-passenger personal watercraft can attain speeds far greater than 45 mph. On the contrary, they always seem to refer to a specific type of boat in their argument. If it really was a safety issue, the type of boat would not be an issue. Further proof that HB162 is a "cleansing" program.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I've rarely seen any concern expressed by HB162 supporters over the fact that a 3-passenger personal watercraft can attain speeds far greater than 45 mph. On the contrary, they always seem to refer to a specific type of boat in their argument. If it really was a safety issue, the type of boat would not be an issue. Further proof that HB162 is a "cleansing" program.

This is just getting silly!

When most of "us" are using the term speeding "boat", we are referring to all high-speed water vessels, including PWC. We're just not singling out PWC, any more than we are singling out any other type of speeding "boat". After all the speed limit will limit the speed of all "boats".

I can't see that anyone here is picking on any particular kind of boat - other than the opponents to 162; who have singled out canoes and kayaks.

[Island Lover]

Seaplane Pilot

You have a good point there. The HB162 argument on BOTH sides has mostly ignored the PWCs. Strange considering I own one. Perhaps it's because while many PWCs will go faster than 45 mph, not many can go over 60.

But why do you limit your comments to 3 person PWCs, HB162 will apply to 1 and 2 person PWCs as well, and some of those are high power for their size.

You are wrong about your cleansing theory however. In fact the most ardent supporters, what some might call the "bring back Golden Pond" crowd, hate PWCs a lot more than GFBLs. Owning a PWC on the island is like strike one against you with many neighbors.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

But why do you limit your comments to 3 person PWCs, HB162 will apply to 1 and 2 person PWCs as well, and some of those are high power for their size.

Island Lover: You are correct - I should not exclude 1-2 person PWCs in my comment. I don't own one and my impression is that the 1-2 person PWCs are older and may not have the power and speed of the newer, 3 passenger units. However I still stand by my position that the focus of this issue has been against the GFBL boats versus any other type. Again one of the reps in the hearing stated that HB162 would only affect about 200 people. There are way more than 200 PWC's on Winni alone, never mind all lakes in NH, so why would the rep have made this statement if it was not directed toward GFBL boats? However, the 200 may not be so far off from the actual number of GFBL boats on Winni, but I have no way of knowing the exact number.

[tis]

I think 200 is way, way off! My little 18' bowrider family boat goes over 50!

[Bear Islander]

Back in 1998 the was a speed limit everywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee up until early July. This speed limit was announced at the last minute and only a few posters where put up at public boat ramps and marinas. Yet compliance was almost 100%.

To be sure some peoples idea of "no wake speed" was more than 6 mph. But I only remember one boat going by at cruising speed. Possibly they had an emergency or never got the word, or maybe there were scofflaws.

1998 proved that the word gets around pretty good, and that most people will obey a speed limit. I don't remember the Marine Patrol having any special problem enforcing that speed limit.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Back in 1998 the was a speed limit everywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee up until early July. This speed limit was announced at the last minute and only a few posters where put up at public boat ramps and marinas. Yet compliance was almost 100%.

To be sure some peoples idea of "no wake speed" was more than 6 mph. But I only remember one boat going by at cruising speed. Possibly they had an emergency or never got the word, or maybe there were scofflaws.

1998 proved that the word gets around pretty good, and that most people will obey a speed limit. I don't remember the Marine Patrol having any special problem enforcing that speed limit.

Bear Islander...

You are way off base with that statement. The lake wide NWZ was in place for almost a month. It was broadcast every weekend it was in effect on just about every TV and radio station within 150 miles of Lake Winnipesaukee. You could not watch the news and not hear about it! There were also signs at all of the boat launches to inform those that didn't know about it. In fact, one particular weekend during the high water/lake wide NWZ, they announced they were lifting the ban on friday... so everybody came up (myself included as I didn't own a house up here yet) and the hotels made lots of money, instead of cancellations! Only to put the NWZ back in effect saturday morning. During the lakewide NWZ the hotel business lost LOTS of money! Comparing that weekend to actual speed limit enforcement is absurd. Its pretty easy to visually confirm that someone is traveling at a speed greater than headway....

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Bear Islander...

You are way off base with that statement. The lake wide NWZ was in place for almost a month. It was broadcast every weekend it was in effect on just about every TV and radio station within 150 miles of Lake Winnipesaukee. You could not watch the news and not hear about it! There were also signs at all of the boat launches to inform those that didn't know about it. In fact, one particular weekend during the high water/lake wide NWZ, they announced they were lifting the ban on friday... so everybody came up (myself included as I didn't own a house up here yet) and the hotels made lots of money, instead of cancellations! Only to put the NWZ back in effect saturday morning. During the lakewide NWZ the hotel business lost LOTS of money! Comparing that weekend to actual speed limit enforcement is absurd. Its pretty easy to visually confirm that someone is traveling at a speed greater than headway....

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

My point was, and still is, the 1998 speed limit worked. It received lots of media attention, so has HB162. There were a few posters put up, not $100,000.00 in signage. It was very easy to tell when a boat was going faster than no wake speed. It is also very easy to tell if a boat is going 90 in a 45 zone.

Just like in 1998 the MP are not going to be out trying to bust people for being a few mph over the limit. They will be tolerant of legitimate mistakes. And they will be able tell smell a phony "I didn't know about a limit" story a nautical mile away.

It worked in 1998 it will work in 2007.

[Woodsy]

I am REALLY surprised at this thread!

Bear Islander...

I have to completely disagree with you. In 1998 a lakewide NWZ was instituted as an TEMPORARY EMERGENCY measure. It was implemented to protect the shoreline from erosion and docks from being damaged by boat wakes due to the lake being excessively high. It was not instituted as a speed limit, nor was it intended to be one. There was ALOT of money spent to get the word out, not just a few posters. Channel 9 news (and others) gave out information on a daily basis. It was a big deal for the month it was instituted. It was easy to enforce because its pretty easy to tell if a boat is on plane or not.

It is not that easy to tell if a boat is going 90 in a 45 unless you have something to compare it to. No doubt you can tell its probably going faster than 45, but to accurately tell exactly how fast is impossible. You will need to be accurate in order to issue a ticket that will be tagged to a persons driving record.

You state that the MP are not going to be out to bust people for being a few mph over the limit. How do you know? Can I expect your silence when a report comes out (similar to Lake George) and they have only issued 5-6 tickets?

I still don't understand why you (and others) don't want to fully fund HB-162? I really don't get it. If your going to have a law, then it should be enforced. If your not going to enforce the law, or perhaps even worse, only selectively enforce the law, then why have it? If you educate people about the laws existence, then they will be more likely to obey it.

Woodsy

The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

[SAMIAM]

Bear Islander is wrong about (most) restaurants and hotels supportingHB-162.The fact is that owners of GF boats, as you refer to them, are mostly affluent.They eat out a lot,put up friends and family in local hotels and shop in our stores. Did you ever see a kayaker pull up to the Meredith docks with a party of 8 and go for dinner at one of the local restaurants, drop a few hundred bucks at Mills Falls and then buy $300 worth of gas on the way out? The kayaker brings bottled water and a granola bar,which is not a bad thing........but doesn't do a lot for the local merchant.
I love to canoe and also have a day sailer......definately not dumping on people who don't own powerboats.Just stating the facts

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by tis

I think 200 is way, way off! My little 18' bowrider family boat goes over 50!

You read my mind - there are thousands of vessels that will exceed 45, 50, 55, even 60mph. Yet they are only concerned with about 200? What does that tell you? They are not concerned about the thousands of vessels statewide that can exceed their proposed 45mph limit, but only the 200 (99% of which are on Winni) that are the GFBL boats. Smells like GFBL boat cleansing to me...CASE CLOSED!

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Bear Islander is wrong about (most) restaurants and hotels supportingHB-162.The fact is that owners of GF boats, as you refer to them, are mostly affluent.They eat out a lot,put up friends and family in local hotels and shop in our stores. Did you ever see a kayaker pull up to the Meredith docks with a party of 8 and go for dinner at one of the local restaurants, drop a few hundred bucks at Mills Falls and then buy $300 worth of gas on the way out? The kayaker brings bottled water and a granola bar,which is not a bad thing........but doesn't do a lot for the local merchant.
I love to canoe and also have a day sailer......definately not dumping on people who don't own powerboats.Just stating the facts

Bear Islander is correct about restaurants and hotels. Go to this link then click on "Our Winnipesaukee Region Buisness Supporters". And this isn't even the updated list, I understand that list has over 400 on it.

http://winnfabs.com/

Now here is the list that support the opposition, it's copied from the Oppose HB162 web page. Only 23 businesses, only 2 of them could be called a restaurant or hotel. But there is Nashua elevator company in there. If there is some other list I can't find it.

New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association
NH Marine Trades
NH B.A.S.S. Federation
NASWA Resort - Laconia, NH
Channel Cottages - Laconia, NH
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport, NH
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury, NH
Chases Marine Service
Grays Marine service
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee, NH
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills, NH
JFG Enterprises Prop
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia, NH
Diamond Shine - Gilford, NH
Lil' Hustler Tackle Co - Pembroke, NH
Granite State Rod & Reel Repair - Nashua, NH
Cricket Corner Woodworks - Amherst, NH
Decelles Auto Clinic Inc. - Nashua, NH
Amherst Surface Restorations Inc. - Amherst, NH
Stanley Elevator Co. - Nashua, NH
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith, NH
Wireless Zone - Milford, NH
Rapid Response Marketing - Manchester, NH

This idea that HB162 is bad for business is nuts.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Bear Islander is correct about restaurants and hotels. Go to this link then click on "Our Winnipesaukee Region Buisness Supporters". And this isn't even the updated list, I understand that list has over 400 on it.

http://winnfabs.com/

Now here is the list that support the opposition, it's copied from the Oppose HB162 web page. Only 23 businesses, only 2 of them could be called a restaurant or hotel. But there is Nashua elevator company in there. If there is some other list I can't find it.

New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association
NH Marine Trades
NH B.A.S.S. Federation
NASWA Resort - Laconia, NH
Channel Cottages - Laconia, NH
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport, NH
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury, NH
Chases Marine Service
Grays Marine service
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee, NH
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills, NH
JFG Enterprises Prop
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia, NH
Diamond Shine - Gilford, NH
Lil' Hustler Tackle Co - Pembroke, NH
Granite State Rod & Reel Repair - Nashua, NH
Cricket Corner Woodworks - Amherst, NH
Decelles Auto Clinic Inc. - Nashua, NH
Amherst Surface Restorations Inc. - Amherst, NH
Stanley Elevator Co. - Nashua, NH
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith, NH
Wireless Zone - Milford, NH
Rapid Response Marketing - Manchester, NH

This idea that HB162 is bad for business is nuts.

Winnfabs' list has an ad agency from Manchester, as well as a shoe store and printing company from Laconia. What relevance to these businesses have to hotel and restaurants?

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Most of the "experts" disagree with you.

Most of the local Real Estate companies and organizations support HB162. So do most local restaurants and hotels and 11 marinas.

They claim the lake is becoming less friendly to family tourism because of boating congestion and operator fear.

So HB162 will draw larger crowds to the lake as the lake will be safer??
GREAT ...just what the lake needs larger crowds

[Rayhunt]

I cant believe that a few island residents who are here maybe 5% of the time can claim knowledge of the congestion on the lake. Im out there quite a bit from ice out to ice in. The problem of congestion and speed is minimal most of the time. Blanket legislation to make the lake the way you envision it for 7-8 weekends a year is rediculous. It is what it is !
Gee beautiful day , where are all the speed boats ... Oh they must be running a blockade around Bear island to scare the elderly.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As you also probably know, the MP's have 15 different patrol boats for Lake Winnipesaukee, and other boats for Newfound, Winnisquam, Squam, Little Squam, Sunapee, Ossipee, Wentworth, Umbagog, Frances and roving MP officers for the many other lakes. So, as you probably know, a speed limit is just one more tool in their tool box.

And the MP have jurisdiction of over 600 bodies of water and rivers. They have at the most less than 100 officers working on a given day. If the oficers patrol in pairs than there is less than 50 boats. If there is one boat in 50 waterways, NH has only 8% coverage. This is even less if 15 of the 50 boats are in Winnipesaukee! I think this is a serious discrepancy.

[Airwaves]

Hi All
This is my first post here and I must admit to having mixed emotions about the speed limit debate.

After thinking about it, if all the speed limit is designed to do is to provide Marine Patrol with another tool to get the "bad" guy, they already have a speed limit of sorts that they can enforce.

The ColRegs provide a guideline that basically limit the speed of boats to a speed in which the boat can take proper and evasive action to avoid collision and things like traffic density, visibility etc. are taken into account.

So, if in the opinion of a trained Marine Patrol officer, a boat is exceeding what they consider a safe speed under the current water and weather conditions then they certainly can enforce the existing law.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

And the MP have jurisdiction of over 600 bodies of water and rivers. They have at the most less than 100 officers working on a given day. If the oficers patrol in pairs than there is less than 50 boats. If there is one boat in 50 waterways, NH has only 8% coverage. This is even less if 15 of the 50 boats are in Winnipesaukee! I think this is a serious discrepancy.

I don't think you understand what it's like on most of those 600 bodies of water. I spent more than 20 summers on a NH lake with 2 children's camps and about 50 homes. We NEVER saw the MP at that lake.

Ask the MP how many hours a year they spend on the 550 least active bodies of water.

[RegalStan2450]

It's interesting to note that most references to speed (speeding boats) seem to imply that the only vessels that are capable of speeds equal to or in excess of the 45mph speed limit are just a small percentage of (read - cigarette style) boats.

That where the abbreviation "gfbl" came from I suppose. I never even heard of that abbreviation before HB162.

Funny thing is, a bass boat with a 200 hp+ motor will go almost 80+ mph. There are plenty of those out there. Many PWC's go 60+. How about an 80 mph sport cruiser. Many formulas like that.

Further proof that HB162 is a "cleansing" program.

The more I read the more I tend to believe this statement. I honestly come from a unbiased opinion. At the beginning of all this I was actually in favor of HB162 seeing my boat only goes 55 or so max ,and I do have young children.

Now I feel nothing but this as being a waste of time and money. HB162 IMO, has nothing to do with safety and will not make the lake any safer.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

That where the abbreviation "gfbl" came from I suppose. I never even heard of that abbreviation before HB162.

Funny thing is, a bass boat with a 200 hp+ motor will go almost 80+ mph. There are plenty of those out there. Many PWC's go 60+. How about an 80 mph sport cruiser. Many formulas like that.



The more I read the more I tend to believe this statement. I honestly come from a unbiased opinion. At the beginning of all this I was actually in favor of HB162 seeing my boat only goes 55 or so max ,and I do have young children.

Now I feel nothing but this as being a waste of time and money. HB162 IMO, has nothing to do with safety and will not make the lake any safer.

RegalStan, be sure to write your State Senator to let him/her know how you feel about HB162. You bring up some valid points.

[Fat Jack]

I thought this thread was about the cost of implementing and enforcing a speed limit?
Why did you guys give up on that discussion and try to turn yet another thread into a "discrimination against cigarette boats" thread?
What happened to the concerns about buying all those signs to float around the lake?
What happened to the argument that we have to send every MP officer to an 8 hour training course in the busy summertime instead of sending just 1 officer to a 2 week instructor-certification course in the slow wintertime?
What happened to the argument that officers will have to spend hundreds of OT hours in court to enforce a half dozen tickets?
And why no mention of the CG's Recreational Boating Safety Program (http://www.uscgboating.org/grants/state/rbs.htm) that we already take part in, which will provide upon application half of the state's costs for;
"Providing facilities, equipment, and supplies for boating safety education and law enforcement, including purchase, operation, maintenance, and repair" and "Training personnel in skills related to boating safety and to the enforcement of boating safety laws and regulations".

Let's get back on topic.

[RegalStan2450]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I thought this thread was about the cost of implementing and enforcing a speed limit?
Why did you guys give up on that discussion and try to turn yet another thread into a "discrimination against cigarette boats" thread?
What happened to the concerns about buying all those signs to float around the lake?
What happened to the argument that we have to send every MP officer to an 8 hour training course in the busy summertime instead of sending just 1 officer to a 2 week instructor-certification course in the slow wintertime?
What happened to the argument that officers will have to spend hundreds of OT hours in court to enforce a half dozen tickets?
And why no mention of the CG's Recreational Boating Safety Program (http://www.uscgboating.org/grants/state/rbs.htm) that we already take part in, which will provide upon application half of the state's costs for;
"Providing facilities, equipment, and supplies for boating safety education and law enforcement, including purchase, operation, maintenance, and repair" and "Training personnel in skills related to boating safety and to the enforcement of boating safety laws and regulations".

Let's get back on topic.

I really never got into all of those arguements. It is obvious it will cost some money no matter how little. It will cost MP time, it will not be self enforcing IMO.

Maybe my post doesn't belong here, sorry FJ. I just don't think this bill makes the lake a safer place. So no matter how little it costs I see it as wasted money and time.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

I just don't think this bill makes the lake a safer place. So no matter how little it costs I see it as wasted money and time.

Stan,
That was a very straightforward and well-made post. And you are most welcome to that opinion. While I do not agree with it, it is refreshing to see a person state his/her opinion without resorting to redicule, insult, threat, mistruth, mischaracterisation, distortion, or fabrication. Thank you for that. Perhaps if we had all been so straightforward from the start, this issue would never have gotten so ugly and devisive.
Jack

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I thought this thread was about the cost of implementing and enforcing a speed limit?
Why did you guys give up on that discussion and try to turn yet another thread into a "discrimination against cigarette boats" thread?
What happened to the concerns about buying all those signs to float around the lake?
What happened to the argument that we have to send every MP officer to an 8 hour training course in the busy summertime instead of sending just 1 officer to a 2 week instructor-certification course in the slow wintertime?
What happened to the argument that officers will have to spend hundreds of OT hours in court to enforce a half dozen tickets?
And why no mention of the CG's Recreational Boating Safety Program (http://www.uscgboating.org/grants/state/rbs.htm) that we already take part in, which will provide upon application half of the state's costs for;
"Providing facilities, equipment, and supplies for boating safety education and law enforcement, including purchase, operation, maintenance, and repair" and "Training personnel in skills related to boating safety and to the enforcement of boating safety laws and regulations".

Let's get back on topic.

Fat Jack...

I still haven't seen any proposal from you yet on how to pay for HB-162. The response from most of the supporters has been that HB-162 requires no financing.

Island Lover has stated "HB162 doesn't require ANY expenditures."

Bear Islander has stated "As pointed out, it doesn't have to cost one dime."

There will be a cost incurred. Especially where a speeding violation is tied to your driving record. There will be training required, there will be equipment costs, there will be court costs and there will be signage costs. We can debate all day as to what those costs will actually be, but without a doubt there will be a cost associated with HB-162. How do you intend to pay these costs? The only one who has had a possible solution is Evenstar who recomended we require registrations for canoes & kayaks.

Your claim that tourism will be increased is blatantly false. There are less hotel/motel rooms available to rent on Lake Winnipesaukee today than there were 2-3 years ago. The only new hotel built on the lake is Rusty's Church Landing. The rooms he added doesn't offset the rooms lost by almost all of the mom & pop motels selling out and being converted to condos. How will we cater to the demand of increased tourism on Lake Winnipesaukee? Build more lavish hotels? I am sure Rusty is salivating over that thought...

There were many at the hearings who complained about congestion on the lake now. What will they be saying when all of these tourists rent boats from Rusty & Merrill and Thurstons? Maybe all of the marinas like Shep Browns & Channel will start renting boats to offset the loss of revenue from the hi-performance boats that they are no longer selling. This will drive the cost of renting a boat down, thus increasing the number of rental boats on the lake. Are we sure thats such a good idea? Merrill & Rusty do as it adds more money to thier bottom line, even if thier profit margin is decreased.

If our MP only write 5-6 speeding tickets a year, as they do on your much touted Lake George, can I expect your silence then? I don't think for one minute that any of the vocal supporters of HB-162 will be silent if our MP only writes 5-6 speeding tickets a year.

Woodsy