Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues > Speed Limits
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-17-2009, 10:04 AM   #201
chmeeee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 90
Thanks: 19
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Thanks Steve, I had a great day on the lake. It was hot and sunny here and Winnipesaukee was very busy, but very civilized again. Hope you enjoyed the day up on your lake.
I just can't get over the difference a simple little law has made. You might not be able to see that from your vantage in VT, but having been out on Lake Winnipesaukee for well over 600 hours so far this spring/summer, I have witnessed the improvement first hand.
Wow, 600 hours, that's pretty impressive. Almost like a full time job! Actually, it is a full time job, that would be 40 hours per week assuming you've been out since the beginning of May. Especially impressive given the almost non-stop rain through May, June, & July.

To be entirely honest, I feel like the percentage of GFBs has not changed at all. Sure, there are not as many of them this year, but there are not as many of every type of boat. I did in fact see the biggest GFB I've ever seen twice on Sunday. It was a 52 foot something or other with a closed cockpit. Interestingly, he was one of the more civil boaters I've seen on this lake. He came out of the Gilford Town Docks at headway speed all the way out past Locks Island before taking off. I saw him again later on idling through the Bear Island NWZ.



(Please excuse the low-res, long distance shot)

Interestingly, I did have the good fortune of meeting the biggest moron I've ever seen on the lake. Going through the Bear Island NWZ from north to south, I look back and see a 25 or so foot center console steaming towards me, bow high, max wake. He banked right about 75 feet behind me and passed by my starboard side about 20 feet off, still maximum wake (in the NWZ). I honked, he smiled and kept going towards Sheps, never slowing below 20 mph or so.
chmeeee is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 10:42 AM   #202
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Those are the type of boaters that I usually "think" just don't understand that their actions may not be prudent. Not a dangerous Bonehead per se. Many boaters don't realize what their own wake does, both on shore and on the water. Granted, they have to contend with wakes as any boater does, so they Should know. I don't necessarily assume that everyone's a seasoned boater and understands all of their actions. Some are newbies, and operate as they would in a car.

I know most people are afraid to get involved in altercations, society being what it can be today. But a simple warning that he could have a seriously expensive ticket in a highly patrolled area may make him think you're just looking out for his wallet Regardless of whether they patrol it or not
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:21 AM   #203
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Hate to say this but... The 45 MPH daytime part of the speed limit is not as bad as I thought it would be.

I am against the speed limit in principle, because I feel speed is not an issue on the lake. What I have seen this year has made me realize that the speed limit is making MY boating more fun. I have found that the bays are a lot more civilized, due to less overtaking. This is especially true in Alton Bay, an area I frequent. I still overtake boats on Alton Bay, but I'm far less likely to be overtaken now. As the overtaker, I'm the give-way boat and I am more confident in my ability to be the give-way captain than I am relying on someone else to be. This is something I had not considered, and has actually encouraged me to operate my boat faster in bays than I ever used to. It's nice not seeng boats bearing down on me from behind as I prepare to alter course to overtake another boat. I imagine the boat I am overtaking has a very different perspective though...

I think no speed limit in the broads is a good idea, but I can live with 45, and here's why: All the intelligent boaters know that speed limit really does not matter in the broads. One can operate as fast as one wants to out there with no chance of ever being ticketed by following one simple rule of physics. This simple rule also happens to be a very safe rule to follow and will completely prevent collisions and fear. Frankly, I like the idea that only smart poeple can get away with speeding. If someone gets convicted (fairly) of speeding in the daytime, on this lake, they have to be pretty dumb and operating unsafely.

I think the 25 MPH night time limit is at least 5 MPH too slow. 30 is perfectly safe on nights with plenty off moonlight, or an hour or two after sunset.

I am still against the boating speed limit, but I would support a compromise that limited speeds in the bays and increased speed limits to at least 30 at night, lake-wide.
Dave R is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:22 AM   #204
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

I just want to point out that this thread has degenerated into "just another speed limit argument". Is anybody really trying to float a compromise? The clock is ticking.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:22 AM   #205
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,814
Thanks: 2,327
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Thank You for acknowledging the SL is working.

I think speeding to get home just before or during a thunderstorm is an unwritten exception to the rules. In fact its not all that unwritten. The concept of "force majeure" says you can break the law in extreme circumstances. Like robbing a bank when someone is holding a gun on your family. Dozens of boats go through the Bear Island NWZ full speed just before and during a bad storm. And I have seen the MP watch them and do nothing. I have done it myself with no feeling of guilt.
I agree with you here BI. But if the the bill makes 45 statutary then that means the above unwritten law is no longer true. Keeping it arbitrary and 'reasonable and prudent' fits in very well.

That being said. The current law can be pretty vague when it comes to court play. The judge has a pretty grey area to play with.

I wonder how ELChase will feel if we full throttle through Meredith Bay to escape a thunderstorm. 'Not in my backyard!'
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 08-17-2009, 11:43 AM   #206
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I just want to point out that this thread has degenerated into "just another speed limit argument". Is anybody really trying to float a compromise? The clock is ticking.
I just did in the post above yours.
Dave R is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:59 AM   #207
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I'm just astounded at your "well over 600 hours" this year. In a year of pretty bad weather, that's an astounding accomplishment. (
Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee View Post
Wow, 600 hours, that's pretty impressive. Almost like a full time job! Actually, it is a full time job, that would be 40 hours per week assuming you've been out since the beginning of May.
You guys really like to give a hard time, eh? Is there a limit to how much time I can spend on the lake? Do I need your permission? I thought I could say (unlike many on the this forum) that my boating does not impact anyone but me, but I guess I am wrong. My boats are very quite, and although my power boat is pretty fast (goes about 45...a pretty fast speed for a boat), my speed has never put anyone else at risk of caused them fear, and I have never had a violation because I adhere to all of our laws, even those I disagree with. How could my boating possibly offend you? And I'm the "troll"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I just put about 8 hours on this weekend. That's a third of my entire summer hours now, a new low
Judging by your dedication to this forum (a whopping 20-some posts since Friday), I'm surprised you've been able to get that much boating time in. Do you have a satellite connection in the boat out in VT? You are the last person that should be challenging how someone occupies their time. Do you have any other interests besides posting from VT on a NH speed limit forum? ... about an activity you only do for 24 hours a year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee View Post
I did in fact see the biggest GFB I've ever seen twice on Sunday. It was a 52 foot something or other with a closed cockpit.
That looks like the same boat I saw last week. And you don't think that looks silly on a crowded lake? Was he still wearing his Helmet and PFD? Did he still have his tail between his legs from last week's spanking? I'm surprised he came back, but not surprised he was now respecting the law. But I must say that helmet really was a laugh. Surpized he wasn't wearing an Evil Kneevil cape too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee View Post
I look back and see a 25 or so foot center console steaming towards me, he banked right about 75 feet behind me and passed by my starboard side about 20 feet off, still maximum wake (in the NWZ). I honked, he smiled and kept going towards Sheps, never slowing below 20 mph or so.
I hear ya. This must have been annoying. Now take this boat and double it in length, triple it in weight, and quadruple it in speed and imagine how your annoyance woudl have changed to terror as he approached.

I wrote a very frank and sincere post about what you guys need to do to help save your pastime on the remaining lakes. You have jerks out there who do not belong in the "cock pits" of these huge boats, and they have cost you some of your freedoms already. Yet you continue to direct your anger at the "victims" rather than the "criminals". Challenging silly details of the posts of people who enjoy passive pastimes like fishing and sailing, and trying to scare them from voicing their opinions is not going to help you avoid seeing more speed limits enacted on the other lakes around the region. If you don't concentrate on removing the GFBL Boneheads from the remaining lakes and if the problems Winnipesaukee used to have persist on those lakes, then the people of those lakes are going to see how well the SL is working here and are going to want to copy it. Then you will have no place left without rules. Stop focusing on me and how many hours I get to spend in my boats and start directing your anger at the right group. Stop high-fiving the few law-breakers who are still speeding here and thinking that they are doing you some big favor. They are your worst enemies, yet you are too blind to see that. I write this in all sincerity.

I'm getting very frustrated and thinking that my time might be better spent than trying to debate with this group on this issue anymore. As they say; you can lead a horse to water, and I've really run into a bunch of non-thirsty horses. When people start threatening to "investigate" me and start ridiculing my amount of boating, then it is clear that logic is just being wasted and that this is not a worthwhile investment of time I'd rather be spending on the lake on such sunny days as this. You guys are clearly devoted to your cause and have decided that insulting and intimidating those who disagree is somehow going to get a wonderful law that the rest of society is enjoying to be repealed. Why should I try to steer you from that misguided tactic? It worked so well for you last time. If I promise to stay out of these threads, will you stop talking about me, ridiculing me, and leave me alone?
 
Old 08-17-2009, 12:11 PM   #208
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
I just did in the post above yours.
I was just about to post the same. Seems like that compromise position has already been offered up as well. The bays are always more congested, and the narrower the bay, the tougher it is when there are many different speeds travelled.

The reason I say just extend the sunset provision is this. Next year "may" signal the return to more typical boating activity. I say May because nobody knows how many people have just gotten out of boating due to the economy, how many will ever come back, and how much has been the bad weather/economic snowball affect. I can only guess that it will reappear as the weather stabilizes, and people have the wherewithal to go out. I try not to assume, so I'd wait.


What are the pros to extending the sunset provision?

Obviously, the data. If boat traffic returns to "normal", whatever that is, people can make more informed judgments about the impact of the SL law. Accidents weren't the problem, so I doubt not having accidents is the measure of the law. But if traffic goes back to normal, And the perception is that they feel better, as Dave feels, then you're left with the boneheads.

There's so many things that go into addressing a law. With all of the publicity surrounding this law, perhaps people are a lot more aware of their boating activity. There may well be some serious cowboys that have not been on the lake as a result of the law. This would be a good thing. They would not have been on the lake if there cowboy and dangerous actions were spotted by MP's right?

Dave has no real dog in this battle, other than principle. So I'd be far more inclined to listen more to his perceptions and stories than others. But I do feel that in the long run, you can keep the daytime/weekend limits and massage them as time goes by. I agree with many that the nighttime limit of 25 is a bit low.

Anytime a perfect weather weekend on Winni seems relatively pleasant and easy going on Winni, there's more to it than an unenforced SL. I'll bet there's even more attention given to anchoring this year.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 12:47 PM   #209
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
I wonder how ELChase will feel if we full throttle through Meredith Bay to escape a thunderstorm. 'Not in my backyard!'
I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.
 
Old 08-17-2009, 01:04 PM   #210
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 224
Thanks: 39
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post

. And you don't think that looks silly on a crowded lake? Was he still wearing his Helmet and PFD? Did he still have his tail between his legs from last week's spanking? I'm surprised he came back, but not surprised he was now respecting the law. But I must say that helmet really was a laugh. Surpized he wasn't wearing an Evil Kneevil cape too.
This boat and its owner were in no way reprimanded by the MP. The MP were in awe of the boat and wanted a closer look at it. Of course, the story gets twisted, but what else is new?
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 01:47 PM   #211
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
You guys really like to give a hard time, eh? Is there a limit to how much time I can spend on the lake? Do I need your permission? I thought I could say (unlike many on the this forum) that my boating does not impact anyone but me, but I guess I am wrong. My boats are very quite, and although my power boat is pretty fast (goes about 45...a pretty fast speed for a boat), my speed has never put anyone else at risk of caused them fear, and I have never had a violation because I adhere to all of our laws, even those I disagree with. How could my boating possibly offend you? And I'm the "troll"?


Judging by your dedication to this forum (a whopping 20-some posts since Friday), I'm surprised you've been able to get that much boating time in. Do you have a satellite connection in the boat out in VT? You are the last person that should be challenging how someone occupies their time. Do you have any other interests besides posting from VT on a NH speed limit forum? ... about an activity you only do for 24 hours a year?

That looks like the same boat I saw last week. And you don't think that looks silly on a crowded lake? Was he still wearing his Helmet and PFD? Did he still have his tail between his legs from last week's spanking? I'm surprised he came back, but not surprised he was now respecting the law. But I must say that helmet really was a laugh. Surpized he wasn't wearing an Evil Kneevil cape too.

I hear ya. This must have been annoying. Now take this boat and double it in length, triple it in weight, and quadruple it in speed and imagine how your annoyance woudl have changed to terror as he approached.

I wrote a very frank and sincere post about what you guys need to do to help save your pastime on the remaining lakes. You have jerks out there who do not belong in the "cock pits" of these huge boats, and they have cost you some of your freedoms already. Yet you continue to direct your anger at the "victims" rather than the "criminals". Challenging silly details of the posts of people who enjoy passive pastimes like fishing and sailing, and trying to scare them from voicing their opinions is not going to help you avoid seeing more speed limits enacted on the other lakes around the region. If you don't concentrate on removing the GFBL Boneheads from the remaining lakes and if the problems Winnipesaukee used to have persist on those lakes, then the people of those lakes are going to see how well the SL is working here and are going to want to copy it. Then you will have no place left without rules. Stop focusing on me and how many hours I get to spend in my boats and start directing your anger at the right group. Stop high-fiving the few law-breakers who are still speeding here and thinking that they are doing you some big favor. They are your worst enemies, yet you are too blind to see that. I write this in all sincerity.

I'm getting very frustrated and thinking that my time might be better spent than trying to debate with this group on this issue anymore. As they say; you can lead a horse to water, and I've really run into a bunch of non-thirsty horses. When people start threatening to "investigate" me and start ridiculing my amount of boating, then it is clear that logic is just being wasted and that this is not a worthwhile investment of time I'd rather be spending on the lake on such sunny days as this. You guys are clearly devoted to your cause and have decided that insulting and intimidating those who disagree is somehow going to get a wonderful law that the rest of society is enjoying to be repealed. Why should I try to steer you from that misguided tactic? It worked so well for you last time. If I promise to stay out of these threads, will you stop talking about me, ridiculing me, and leave me alone?
When you make unrealistic claims of 600 hours on the lake and a 14 foot boat going 25mph could not kill you if struck, what do you expect?
gtagrip is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to gtagrip For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (08-17-2009)
Old 08-17-2009, 03:08 PM   #212
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,814
Thanks: 2,327
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Default Doesn't take much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.
It's not rocket science. Your grammar, phrases, texts etc. is the same as before.

While you are trolling here. You have not given one solitary compromise to the speed limit issue. That is what this thread is all about. Play the game or get out!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:02 PM   #213
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Some good solutions up there.

Last edited by VtSteve; 08-18-2009 at 06:23 AM.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 06:50 AM   #214
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default I don't care

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I'd have no problem with people running for safety in my backyard and have never indicated otherwise, but your post is obviously not about my tolerance, it is saying "Although you've never told us, we have been investigating and know where you live". Not much of an investigation since my address is listed with my phone number next to my name...alphabetically...Nice detective work. This also explains some of the weird hang-ups we've been getting.
Is this what happens to people who do not agree with you? Do you think it helps your cause to intimidate those who don't carry your water, scare them off the forum, then say "Look, everyone who is still posting here opposes the speed limit, therefore it should be repealed."? You guys are no different on the forum than you are on the lake ..."Get out or our way"...You are nothing but a bunch of bullies, then you cry that you are being "discriminated against". Disliking bullies is not a hate crime.
You should NOT be harrassed because of your words or actions and hope that no one from this forum is doing so.

I don't care where you live, who you are, if you are a multi-nicker or anything else about you. Most people have way too much on their plate to waste their time trying to find out.

This thread was started to discuss compromises which has been done pretty well in many of the 212 posts above this one. You, on the other hand, have not offered one compromise. Between that and your smarmy attitude you have put yourself at odds with virtually everyone on this forum. There is no bullying going on, but when you put forth incindiery comments, expect a like response.

Last edited by VitaBene; 08-18-2009 at 02:10 PM. Reason: I left out a key word (bolded)!!
VitaBene is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-19-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-18-2009), Resident 2B (08-18-2009), SIKSUKR (08-19-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 01:14 PM   #215
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default The current law is the best compromise, and is proving that more every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
It's not rocket science. Your grammar, phrases, texts etc. is the same as before.
I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
You should be harrassed because of your words...
I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.
 
Old 08-18-2009, 01:58 PM   #216
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

There have been many requests put nicely, hinted at and said in a round about way.

So let me try the direct approach.

EL CHASE. We know what you think, we know you have no wish to discuss changing anything what so ever, in any shape or form.

This thread is not your sounding board to oppose changes. You started a supporters thread to do just that. We (opposers) have stayed out of that per the web masters request, respecting what that threads intentions are.

If you want to start an Speed Limit argument thread feel free.

If you are not interested in discussing anything other then leaving the SL as is. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE SUPPORTERS THREAD. (clear enough?)

Your continous banter trying to get this thread shut down is no longer appreciated. Humerous at first but now is just annoying.

Again, I ask the webmaster to assist so that we can continue to discuss a compromise without this continuous back and forth.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-19-2009), hazelnut (08-19-2009), LIforrelaxin (08-19-2009), NoRegrets (08-18-2009), Resident 2B (08-18-2009), VtSteve (08-18-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 01:58 PM   #217
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

I just wish someone from the proponent side would be "Man" enough to just stand up and admit "we just don't like large expensive boats and want them gone" and stop playing the almighty safety card. Let's debate the real problem.

It gets tiring defending a position when you know saftey is not really even the argument.
4Fun is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 4Fun For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-19-2009), chipj29 (08-18-2009), pm203 (08-18-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 02:09 PM   #218
Shreddy
Senior Member
 
Shreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 430
Thanks: 127
Thanked 168 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.


I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.
Since the speed limit is working "so well", we should probably fight to get them to bring it down to 35 mph during the day and 15 mph at night! That will SURELY solve all the problems on the lake...If that doesn't work next year, we'll have to fight for 25 day/5 night!
Shreddy is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 02:17 PM   #219
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Fun View Post
I just wish someone from the proponent side would be "Man" enough to just stand up and admit "we just don't like large expensive boats and want them gone" and stop playing the almighty safety card. Let's debate the real problem.

It gets tiring defending a position when you know saftey is not really even the argument.
I think this post summed it up nicely for the other side. It read like a closed-door meeting of Winfabs.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=188
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 02:19 PM   #220
granitebox
Senior Member
 
granitebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: When I can - Alton
Posts: 91
Thanks: 31
Thanked 46 Times in 15 Posts
Default way past annoying.....

elchase is well past the "annoying" adjective....he's likely converting some supporters in the process.
granitebox is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 02:45 PM   #221
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Missed a key word

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.


I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.
Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip). You should never be harrassed off line over an internet forum. If you are because of a SL debate, that is pretty disgusting.

Regarding the civility- it is Tuesday last time I checked usually not the busiest day of the week.

The reason that most of us regular runabout boaters take issue with your point of view is that you cannot get past the SL being some panacea that cures all that is bad. Some of the things I saw coming back in from Moultonborough Bay on Sunday headed through the buoys that lead to Suissevale were amazing (in view of MP I might add, but it was so busy that the wiser course of action on his part perhaps was to ignore).

I think more of us than you think could care less about a speed limit because our boats can barely exceed it- we do care that the more important rules need to be enforced and that those enforcement efforts should not suffer because MP is trying to catch the few boats speeding that are capable of doing so. I don't oppose a SL, I oppose the notion that it is going to fix anything.

I don't care what you say- whether a 14 foot jon boat with a 25 or a 7000 lb GFBL runs you over, you will be just as dead. But guess what, if either is a 150' away from me the only way I can be harmed is if he shoots me.

If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that. If that happens, the economy of the region will be decimated.

But again, you should NOT be harrassed offline- debated with here, certainly, even heatedly.

Regarding your time on the lake, I think most are envious. I hope you get 1200 hours in, I love seeing people enjoy our lake.
VitaBene is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
Shreddy (08-18-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 03:32 PM   #222
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
This boat and its owner were in no way reprimanded by the MP. The MP were in awe of the boat and wanted a closer look at it. Of course, the story gets twisted, but what else is new?
Is that the boat that was going 90 and suddenly slowed down to 25 mph when he saw the MP boat?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 03:47 PM   #223
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Yes, was spanked

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
Is that the boat that was going 90 and suddenly slowed down to 25 mph when he saw the MP boat?
And put his rooster tail between his legs.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 03:54 PM   #224
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Fun View Post
stand up and admit "we just don't like large expensive boats and want them gone"
But I believe one finally has, I added the bold text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
That looks like the same boat I saw last week. And you don't think that looks silly on a crowded lake? Was he still wearing his Helmet and PFD? Did he still have his tail between his legs from last week's spanking? I'm surprised he came back, but not surprised he was now respecting the law. But I must say that helmet really was a laugh. Surpized he wasn't wearing an Evil Kneevil cape too.
I must add I am quite impressed that you could see the operator wearing a helmet and PFD in a closed cockpit boat.
jmen24 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-18-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 05:08 PM   #225
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
But I believe one finally has, I added the bold text.



I must add I am quite impressed that you could see the operator wearing a helmet and PFD in a closed cockpit boat.
You know what... The one thing I agree on with Elchase is that boat does look a little silly on the lake. So what?? I completely disagree he shouldn't be alowed to boat there.

Just like I am trying to find the time and money to ride a PWC from Miami to the Bahamas. I will also look silly but I am still going to do it and don't want someone telling me I can't.
4Fun is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 05:15 PM   #226
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Fun View Post
You know what... The one thing I agree on with Elchase is that boat does look a little silly on the lake. So what?? I completely disagree he shouldn't be alowed to boat there.

Just like I am trying to find the time and money to ride a PWC from Miami to the Bahamas. I will also look silly but I am still going to do it and don't want someone telling me I can't.
It is kind of like those medium duty trucks I see people turning into pickup trucks. To each their own though, which is how I feel about that boat.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 05:28 PM   #227
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip).
Thanks Sir, your correction is noted and appreciated. My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that.
I have absolutely no agenda. I only want to preserve the status quo, which has been very civil and enjoyable. Preserving the status quo is the antithesis of an agenda. Those who want to see things go back to or towards the anarchy we had on the lake up until a couple of years ago are the ones with an agenda, and a sorry one, in my view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
This thread is not your sounding board to oppose changes. You started a supporters thread to do just that. We (opposers) have stayed out of that per the web masters request, respecting what that threads intentions are.
I have stayed away from the opposers thread in respect for the webmaster's directive. He indicated that all threads except the opposers thread and supporters thread were open for both sides to debate. You want a monopoly on all threads except the supporters thread and that was not the rule as I understood, but I will certainly respect that if the moderator changes the directive. Meanwhile, the supporters thread is for people who enjoy the benefits of the current law and want to share their support for and positive anecdotes about it. I understood the opposers thread to be for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. You seem to feel that this thread is only for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. That to me sounds more like the description of the opposers thread, and I suggest that it is you, Sir, that is in the wrong thread. Who put you in charge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I ask the webmaster to assist
So do I.
 
Old 08-18-2009, 05:37 PM   #228
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
So do I.

All you wish is to get these threads shut down to further your agenda. I have been more the civil in all of my posts although you have baited everyone of them. Trolling gets you no where so you continue to pick a fight...

You have been asked very politely to go elsewhere concerning this thread. I have even suggested you start an argument thread but you continue to banter.

You are not only trolling you are beginning to define Troll...

Why do you continue to cause issues when as you can see people are actually in here trying to compromise? You obviously do not want to compromise so please be gone.

Oh the reason you don't is no one follows you....

You feel the GFB needs attention.. Look in the mirror.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 05:46 PM   #229
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

So lets get back to what this thread was started for.....

From what I have seen there has been a few specific compromises set forth.

Maybe VTsteve could get a poll going (I am not that great with computers)

1. Current law - Broads unlimited
2. compromised speed:
A. 50 day 30 night
B. 55 day 35 night
C. 65 day 35 night
D. unlimited day 30 night
(I believe I got them all, so I apolgize if I missed one)
3. limits in specific bays only.
4. No limits but keeping current verbage of current law eliminating the specific speed limits.
5. (for supporters) keep as is.
6. Keep Laws in place but unlimited over a specific distance
A. 300 ft
B. 500 ft
C. 1000 ft
7. Unlimited (no limits)

I think after reading back through all the "Non-compromising" posts this is all of them. Please point out if I missed any.

Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible?

(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (08-19-2009), Rattlesnake Guy (08-18-2009)
Old 08-18-2009, 07:25 PM   #230
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Elchase
You have had your 30 seconds and then some and in that time you have driven your point home so deep that it is obvious that others who have posted in this thread and me have been worn out by your continual justification of your view and right to discuss the SL. We have heard you from the 3rd post of this thread to now.
I respect your right to comment and be a part of this discussion but you have literally worn out your point so that it is now deader than dead. Please take a break and understand Ocdactive is right – let’s get back to what this thread is about – a discussion about compromise as it relates to the SL which you are definitely not in favor of and I know everyone understands that by now.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 08-18-2009, 08:42 PM   #231
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.
I have been trying to ignore you, but you troll better than I am able to ignore. For the record, my thanks was for adding the bold-ed word "NOT" and it was added after 3:00 PM today. It was not for the original post. I do not support any illegal actions or threats. In the future, please refrain from changing the intend of anything I say.

You really are a piece of work and do everything you can to stir things up. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why you are still able to post, since you add no value to the subject discussion of this thread while breaking at least a few of the forum rules.

Please, get yourself a life!

You are now back on ignore, so do not bother replying.

R2B.
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 04:58 AM   #232
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default NO Need For Comment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
"...(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)
1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
"...Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible...?"
The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
Dave R (08-20-2009), VtSteve (08-19-2009)
Old 08-19-2009, 08:12 AM   #233
LakeSnake
Senior Member
 
LakeSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pine (Alton) Mountain
Posts: 136
Thanks: 39
Thanked 33 Times in 20 Posts
Default

If a proposal is going to voted on I suggest that we some how "elect" two proposals in case the most popular gets shot down by the legislature out of the gate for some unforseen reason. Just always good to have a plan B on the ready. I'm not sure how to do that with the forum poll's? Maybe two seperate polls? (I'm out of school on the technical forum stuff)
LakeSnake is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 08:14 AM   #234
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default Thank you OCDACTIVE

OCDACTIVE - Nice job at directing the thread to a summary and evaluation process.

How about this for a compromise?

Let the year finish and wait for next year to run its course. Maybe the weather and economy will change and we can collect more statistics we can all argue about.

At the end of that period let the debate start again.

Oh wait, that was what was supposed to happen so it really is not a compromise.

What happened? The process has been hijacked by whom for what benefit?

Now we must compromise to get back on track to an unfinished and agreed upon process.

Maybe we should fight to get back on track – sorry not much of a compromise!

PS. As a long time reader but embarrasing light contributer I really appriciate the effort many of you have done over the years to keep the content and discussions entertaining!
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 08:19 AM   #235
Shreddy
Senior Member
 
Shreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 430
Thanks: 127
Thanked 168 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.
WOW, I feel honored! APS is giving me credit for my idea of the Winnipesaukee only license! Unless of course, somebody else suggested it too. Today is going to be a good day
Shreddy is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 08:33 AM   #236
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.
APS, appreciate the comments (on both sides) however you can only beat a dead horse so many times... If anyone wants to post new fresh ideas then by all means go for it. Trying to derail the thread by trolling is what I meant by (no comment needed)

I also see you point of decibel levels. You have always been a proponent of sound restrictions. While I do not agree with them, I do recognize your position and applaud you for sticking to it over the years.

I can not speak for other GFBL boaters on the forum, however there are engines that can not go thru hub or under water exhaust. The back pressure would be too much. I have put Gibson Mufflers on my boat that brings the decible level down to "legal" standards on the lake. It used to be MUCH MUCH louder (music to my ears but I can understand not to everyone else on the lake)

What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.

As for a Winni only license... I really don't think it would help the economy or is a realisitic idea. It is fine for those of us who predominently boat there but it could drive new comers away.. IMHO
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 09:12 AM   #237
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

I agree with the noise issue. I am a gear head myself but there really is no reason for excessive noise. If you can hear a boat 2 miles away I say it is probably too loud.

I also suggest if GBFL boats were significantly quieter in the past there would be no speed limit today. It's the same with snowmobiles. If the noise is low people ignore them.
4Fun is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 09:39 AM   #238
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default Kudos to APS

I like it

I don't mind a little noise. But straight pipes, dry pipes, whatever, is way too much on a small lake. It gets old real fast. Some lakes have banned the Captain's Call/Silent Choice, which is pretty stupid IMO, and defeats the purpose. The reason they did this is that it's a PITA to pull boats over for sound testing. I understand this. Maybe someone can chime in with their thoughts on how to better police this.

For licensing issues. The wonderful little certificate is a good instruction for all boaters, not just newbies. Winni is not the only waterway, so why not make it consistent? People need on the water tests, just as in cars. Perhaps a new business for some enterprising people, perhaps a new revenue stream for the MP. However it's done, another series of common sense procedures would have to be developed in order to accomplish this. Given the bureaucracy that exists everywhere, probably an ETA of around 2-3 years?

I envision someone taking their own boat, or a rental boat, out with an instructor. The applicant would then go through some basic maneuvers and try to pass the test, and more importantly, learn something. There could even be on the water instruction similar in fashion to driver's ed. Before everyone goes all crazy on this, let me finish.
It would cover

Navigation, charts, markers, buoys
Trouble spots, congested areas
NWZ's, bridges, harbors and bays
How to deal with traffic safely, how to plan your moves ahead of time
Best way to navigate through waves, rough water scenarios
Safety in watersports (always high on the list of injuries)
Safety in refueling
Docking, securing the boat properly
Anything else people can think of

This would impact everyone on the lake. The course instruction could be administered through the MP, Power Squadron, whomever. The fees would not only cover costs, but would also be structured to provide revenue for the MP, preferably in their in-between budget times.

I'll leave the details as to how and how much, what happens to boaters that are on the lake and time limits, etc... to people in the MP.

My first choice would be to start this up ASAP, and assign a date that every boater had to complete the course by, say 2011 or so. That would give the powers that be time to fine-tune the administration of the courses and such.

I think it would create safer waterways, more aware boaters, and quite possibly help the MP with their funding issues. I have no problem at all paying an extra $100 a year (just a WAG and not a serious number), towards this type of program. Maybe even factor in a (hire an MP to ride with you in your boat option).

Maybe with the additional ammo in their budget, the MP would also be able to effectively deal with the cowboys on the lake. It could also go a long way towards making all boaters more in tune with the real issues, and perhaps establish better rapport with the MP.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 10:06 AM   #239
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 467
Thanks: 71
Thanked 167 Times in 87 Posts
Default Let's change the law

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.
Excellent topic. What steps would be needed to get the State to accept Captain's Call? I'll be the first one to step up and get this going. This is really a stupid rule and again shows that these lawmakers have no clue when they vote for these issues. Any suggestions would be welcomed and appreciated. LB
Little Bear is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 10:29 AM   #240
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,814
Thanks: 2,327
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Default Back on track

If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable.

I'm not sure about licensing. I don't want to take away more resources from the MP. If the bill contains a clause that pays for this than I am OK with it.

As for raising the speed limit, are there any statistics that says the new limit is safe and reasonable? What is the best speed limit for day and or night? I was thinking if there is an average high speed of all mototrized boats manufactured in the US. We can use that number as a base for discussion. I can't find this information, but it doesn't mean it is out there.

The only reason I don't like the 45/25 numbers is that it is based on another lake. I don't think the legislature should apply it to Winnipesaukee!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 11:02 AM   #241
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

I prefer not to get back into the speed limit itself. There never was anything factual or statistical to back it up, and several of the biggest proponents finally spit out exactly why they like it and support it. It becomes more of a cultural and philosophical issue, and it's time to move on from that.

It's pretty apparent, once again, that those that really want to have a safe lake, and get this issue over and done with, have many things in common. A very large segment would not oppose sensible noise limits. Most would allow for a slightly modified nigh time speed limit. And most everybody wants to assist in limiting as much as possible dangerous boaters and dangerous activities on the water. Most everyone would approve anything that got the MP what they need to do it. (this does not mean putting more boats on the water and throwing money at it).

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters. While it's nice that one very detailed response was posted to the board, many other complaints that cannot be whisked away will never be answered. Community groups have been interfacing with LEO's for many years. Why not a lake group? No, not the blowhard group with myopic agenda and culture wars). A real group that actually points out real issues and trouble spots. Develop some rapport between the community and the MP.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 11:40 AM   #242
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,449
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters.
How about the gfbl's restart the engine on the NH Recreational Boater's Assn, and get its' website up and running again?


You know that for the last 35 years the NH Marine Trades Assn was a very successfull liason between a number of boat & marina businesses and some of the state legislators. The Marine Trades Assn made lots of political contributions in the range of 100-200-300, and a few in the 500-1000 dollar range to some of NH's 400 state reps and 24 state senators..

That liason system used to work just fine! What happened?
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 08-19-2009 at 09:16 PM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 12:11 PM   #243
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

I'm talking about real discussion between the boaters and those that patrol them Less, not politics. There's absolutely no good information coming from the other group now, but I'll bet they're rubbing noses in Concord.

Many lake areas have boating clubs that have very strong connections with the LEO's on their waterways, and generate strong support through membership awareness, education, and full support of both the LEO's and the boaters at large. They're designed to answer and help resolve problems.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 12:26 PM   #244
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable...
To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.
jrc is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 02:24 PM   #245
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Lightbulb Changed testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.
Is that still true ? I thought there was a change to the dB testing that allows the officer to put a meter to the boat while at the dock. If the reading is too high a citation can be issued or a summons for the more formal test.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...0/270-37-a.htm

270:37-a Stationary Sound Level Testing Authorized. –
I. The director or the director's agent may use stationary sound level testing to determine marine engine noise levels for boats. Such testing shall be conducted while boats are stationary on the water according to test SAE J2005.
II. Noise levels in decibels for stationary sound level testing shall be established for a specific distance between the boat tested and the testing device, at levels which correlate with noise levels in decibels, as set forth in RSA 270:37.
III. Testing procedures for stationary sound level testing shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
IV. Any test conducted pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to establish a violation of RSA 270:37.

Source. 1989, 143:6, eff. May 17, 1989. 2006, 234:3, eff. June 1, 2006.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 04:05 PM   #246
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Here's a comprimise. Ban all GFBL boats but allow GFBQ boats.
4Fun is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 04:07 PM   #247
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Hey guys,

I think we are having two discussions here. Maybe I should start a thread Sound Levels in relation to SL. That might help focus our attention on the SL themselves.

I think this is also where a lot of "gray area" occurs. Many people have no problem with boats that go fast, they have an issue with the noise the can make. If that is the case I would like to hear from supporters of the speed limit (in that thread that sound is there major issue not limits)
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (08-19-2009)
Old 08-19-2009, 04:14 PM   #248
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Fun View Post
Here's a comprimise. Ban all GFBL boats but allow GFBQ boats.
Can't be done... As I had mentioned there are performance issues. Even if I wanted to go underwater exhaust I couldn't. There are many boats like mine. However I am below the legal limits so it shouldn't bother you. Yes I do like the noise, but I am not oblivious to those around me that may not (including some of my own family members) so that is why I would love to install captains call to lower them even further.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-19-2009 at 05:39 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-19-2009, 04:16 PM   #249
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,617
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

I had ALOT of reading to catch up on! Darn being busy at work! LOL!

The original "COMPROMISE" to HB-847 was the 2 year "Sunset Clause" inserted into the bill to allow the NHMP to collect data on the enforcement of a speed limit from a practical "hands on" point of view. Is the speed limit necessary? How difficult is it to write a ticket? Do they hold up in court? Cost of enforcement? Cost of training? Etc...

WinnFabs has jumped the gun a bit (in poor taste I might add) by attempting to have HB-847 made into permanent law before the second year of data collection even begins. The NHMP would not even get a chance to compile and evaluate the data from this year (summer ‘09) prior to a legislative vote on HB-847! If anything they should have asked for (and been granted) a 1 year extension of the ‘Sunset Clause”. This idea was actually floated by the NHMP.

The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages!

In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out, but it will need input from both sides and the NHMP as they are the ones tasked with enforcement. It is really easy to sit back and write a law and task someone else with enforcing it. The problems arise when it comes down to actually enforcing the law.

I do kind of agree with Bear Islander on a couple of things… I think that a compromise can and SHOULD be worked out, and I think that anybody should BE SAFE canoeing or kayaking anywhere on the lake. Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this. We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now.

If it were up to Camp Directors, (in their perfect world) nobody else would be using the lake at the same time as the children. However that’s not the case. They have to SHARE the lake with everyone else, just like everyone else. The right of the children to be on the lake does not trump the rights of others to be on the lake. It is the job of the Camp Director to insure the safety of the children. I think that a child getting run over by any boat at any speed is a concern (and it very well should be a concern), I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake. No child at any Children’s Camp on Lake Winnipesaukee has EVER been run over by a speeding boat! I am sure that swamping and capsizing due to large wakes (and the resultant injuries) is much more common occurrence.

To sum it all up…

I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given. Yet we still see Capt. Bonehead driving every type of boat. Greater funding so that NHMP can mount “fly the flag” patrols in the congested areas more often. Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce! More NHMP patrols will mean more Capt. Boneheads stopped for other violations. Noise, 150’ rule etc…. Not too sure of where the funding should come from especially considering power boaters were just hit with an increase. I have a few ideas but they can be saved for another thread.

I think a statewide night time limit is without question a necessity. Night is when most of the serious accidents occur. I think 25 MPH is too slow and it adversely impacted lots of people. People can debate the number till the cows come home but my vote is for 30 MPH… it gives you leeway to 35 or so before you are in any real trouble with the NHMP.

I think a daytime limit is a waste of time… your visibility is measured in MILES! However, in the spirit of compromise my vote would be for a 65 MPH limit. This allows 99% of the boaters to use their boats as they wish. There are a handful of boats that can exceed 65, but no doubt they will limit their activities to the Broads as they do now.

You cannot have different speeds for different places… it becomes an enforcement nightmare for the NHMP. (Boater: I was past the appropriate marker when I was doing 65… NHMP: No you weren’t, from my point of view you were still behind it) It creates a he said-she said with no clearly delineated position. This option was bantered about during the original HB-162 debates and the NHMP was not at all interested.

Noise is an issue, and I think the noise laws should be strictly enforced! (See NHMP Funding above) Captains Call exhaust should be legal as long as you can pass the sound test BOTH ways (loud and quiet)!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-20-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-19-2009), Resident 2B (08-19-2009), Ryan (08-20-2009), VtSteve (08-19-2009), Wolfeboro_Baja (08-20-2009)
Old 08-19-2009, 06:43 PM   #250
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Rattlesnake Guy For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-19-2009)
Old 08-19-2009, 09:05 PM   #251
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.
jrc is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 07:13 AM   #252
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.
I do agree with you that it can be done at a price. I did put on some of the heavier / costly mufflers. They have no moving parts so that it does not cause unnecessary back flow, however they do keep the sound below the legal limits. The only issue is that they stick out close to 18 inches and almost got in the way of my hydro steering.

What I am driving at is it can be done to current standards, however it can become very difficult if not impossible to go lower based on manufactoring standards.

I agree we need more enforcement, but I disagree that nothing is being done. I have seen 2 times in the past year that people were questioned due to their pipes. (not my boat) but I was in one that was.

Also, in one case they were sent to have it tested.

Somewhat ironic however, one testing element is to go by a dock at full throttle with an MP officer in your boat while it is being measured at the dock.
Why measure at full throttle if it is over 45mph?

Isn't that Nonapplicable now?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 07:35 AM   #253
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

I am not sure about this year but 3 years ago a friend was stopped for noise and had to go over to Guilford for a sound test. The MP was polite and set up an appointment for the following Saturday.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 09:54 AM   #254
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test.

If this fixed the problem and now the boat was quiet, then great the law works. But some people would "borrow" mufflers for the test and a few days later be back to loud.

The new law allows a standing still test at idle. But can they do this on the spot? Or do they still need to schedule a test?

Personally I think there are two situations:

A boat comes from the factory with an exhaust system, the factory certifies that it produces a certain noise level. If this noise level is under the limits then done deal.

If you modify your exhaust, then you become the factory. You should have to have it measured before you put it on the lake.
jrc is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 10:00 AM   #255
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test.

If this fixed the problem and now the boat was quiet, then great the law works. But some people would "borrow" mufflers for the test and a few days later be back to loud.

The new law allows a standing still test at idle. But can they do this on the spot? Or do they still need to schedule a test?

Personally I think there are two situations:

A boat comes from the factory with an exhaust system, the factory certifies that it produces a certain noise level. If this noise level is under the limits then done deal.

If you modify your exhaust, then you become the factory. You should have to have it measured before you put it on the lake.
Hey JRC.. If you don't mind I am going to quote you and head over to the Sound regulation as it relates to speed limits thread. That way we don't clog up the compromise thread with sound restrictions etc.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-20-2009)
Old 08-20-2009, 12:07 PM   #256
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default Yes JRC

"The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test." partial quote from JRC

Yes you are right. A few years ago the marine patrol had compassion for my friend and did allow him time to replace his mufflers then get certified. I am not seeing this as a bad thing but a type of "back to humanity" approach. A compromise starts with reactions that are not hardened. There was no danger present so maybe it was appropriate to allow time to adjust the problem. Now the art of compromise is a more difinitive win / loose proposition. We are debating specific hard values. This seems the only way laws are created. It seems that we no longer value the intent of the law but inforce the technicality of it and the process.

I hope the state stops and refudiates any further attempts of certain people to short cut the two year data collection and then evaluation process.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-27-2009, 07:16 AM   #257
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Question The $225 Compromise...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.
That's the trouble with the measurement of sound: The boat I hear at six miles is certainly not making the sound of my computer's fan! Nearly all boats in the offending category continue to make their distinctive noise even when passing behind either Rattlesnake Island and Welch Island!

When it comes to noise, anyone lakeside can readily detect the "sympathetic vibrations" occurring in a sundeck's wood platform made by the passing "legal" noisemaker.

"Noise" needs to be tightened up on this lake—not "readjusted" by the commercial interests responsible for our present dilemma.

IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out..."
Why can't I call this the "Woodsy-Compromise"?

If you're selling an item for $200, and I make an offer of $100. "You say, 'in the spirit of compromise' let's make it $225".

What "tweaking" of 45/25 results in the compromises that we've been seeing on these pages? "A Compromise" would be 75/15!

(Try getting that one passed)

BTW: One sensible compromise would be to permit "Unlimited speeds" everywhere on the Lake between Labor Day and Memorial Day.

(Many could "live" with that one!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages...!"
I have no difficulty refuting ghosts, but too often I perceive that some "drivers" don't pay attention to what lies directly in front of them. (Namely, my boat!)

While trying not to sound like Clint Eastwood, I ask myself, " Do I feel lucky today?"

Unfortunately, the answer would be "yes": It is only through luck that I can boat safely. I perceive that my luck has increased, mostly because fewer opportunities for mischief exist this season.

This year, while I perceive boating traffic is 'way down from last year, I've managed to make myself safer through pro-active warnings. I'm also perceiving that the vast majority of boats are observing the new speed regulation during the daylight hours. (At least when I'm out there observing—I currently have a houseful of guests).

One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:

Quote:
"Something noisy and bad is approaching".


The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this...We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now..."
1) "Stats" are collected for collisions over $2000: How many kayaks are exempted from "stats" by a $2000 threshhold? (An "exact" number, please).

Hmmm. Could it be every last one of them is going uncounted?

2) Today, many are hugging the shoreline untill they perceive the necessity to cross to other shorelines.

3) Just minutes before RG Gal and RG Guy arrived here on the 20th, I watched a kayaker skirt a large group of young kids swimming about 150' from shore. She (the kayaker) gave them another 100' without a thought of any danger to herself—and why should she?

4) Seen the latest fashion statement in kayaking?

A kayaking neighbor (from Camp Ossipee) showed up this month with a flourescent orange hat with flourescent orange paddles. What is it, do you suppose, he "feels"?

IF, as you say, "you can see for miles", why would a kayaker try to look like an endangered roadside worker?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake..."
Canoes and kayaks are growing in numbers, but the Sailfish have disappeared. Although Sailfish can still be fabricated by the DIY-er, I haven't seen one on this lake in decades.

Alton's "Camp Kabeyun" has the Sailfish's successor, the Sunfish—a much safer and even more visible boat. But even that camp's boats and kids are still endangered by "drivers" who operate irresponsibly using tons of iron, steel, and fiberglass.

For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...To sum it all up…I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given...Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce!
They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!
ApS is offline  
Old 08-27-2009, 10:39 PM   #258
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post

(Many could "live" with that one!)




One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:




The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.



For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?


They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!
You must certainly have loved our discussions of the dangerous boaters, the Boneheads, even from last year. And yes, I agree, peer pressure should come from those that "Should" realize who their worst enemies are. Same as always.

How about that enforcement?

Most of us don't condone that type of activity APS. I know for sure that, strictly speaking for myself, I'm as always as careful as I can be out in large sections of water, so as not to get complacent. I spotted a rowboat while on the Mount last Saturday. He was about a mile and a half East of Glendale in the open water. A kayak would have been much harder to see. I worry about things like that, so I'm overly cautious. But if the day ever comes when I can't see a sailboat from afar, I'll hang up my boat keys for good (or check into Lasix)

Believe it or not APS, many of us aren't that far off in what we want, and how careful we are. Certainly, there are differences in perspective, but not the reality. I think you'd be surprised at how cautious and responsible most of the SL opponents are on this board. I for one, know that my eyes couldn't keep up (safely), with an 80 mph boat anymore. I also know that when I was a little guy, I had the common sense not to row or paddle in the middle of the lake.

Somewhere in the middle, lies true wisdom.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 09:22 AM   #259
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?
Attached Images
 
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 09:28 AM   #260
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?
LOL,,,, Best not get him started... He does fine without egging him on.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 10:28 AM   #261
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

I am not trying to get him started I was just curious if that was the boat.

If I was trying to rile him up I would point out a 25 foot boat would actually be responsible for 1.6 acres.

For a 25 foot boat to be responsible for an acre then we would have to change the 150 rule to a 117 foot 6 inch rule.

OK so it’s a slow day at work.
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:26 AM   #262
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
I am not trying to get him started I was just curious if that was the boat.

If I was trying to rile him up I would point out a 25 foot boat would actually be responsible for 1.6 acres.

For a 25 foot boat to be responsible for an acre then we would have to change the 150 rule to a 117 foot 6 inch rule.

OK so it’s a slow day at work.
Not only that but with this post you are actually starting to SOUND like APS. I almost didn't understand it then upon second glance it registered.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:45 AM   #263
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

You guys are great! This forum is great fun, informative, and a major diversion as I am supposed to be working and adding value in return for my salary……….

Acres Per Second – To sum up what you are saying (but not trying to put words in your mouth) is it that you see no difference in this years boating except less traffic? If so then I agree the speed limit is not doing anything. Your posting reads like a pressure relief valve blowing off steam. There were many real examples to your points that we have all witnessed. I hope it served its purpose and I appreciate the time it took to create. It was well written and painted a picture that almost makes me want to stay away from the lake.

Even though all these events occur I will not shy away from using the lake.

I am aware that some are trying to return the lake to a quiet reclusive haven but that conflicts with the many people who like to “cut loose” when they go to resort areas. It is interesting to read threads where some embrase the risk of water balloon launchers and how others are appalled that they are even allowed to exist. There are many personal perspectives on the “threshold of sanity”.

Planes fly over, cars go by, motorcycles with questionable exhausts surround us, dogs bark, wolves howl, lightening explodes, loud base banging music from boom-box-cars (remember the old days when a certain class of people carried these massive devices on their shoulders? Now they sit in them!), accidents will happen and yes, people will be harmed. We can not stop or change progress (could be an interesting debate).

Where is it written that silence is a legal right? We do not expect to be shaken out of bed or of the porch like you mentioned and there is a thread to address this and I do sympathize with you and your party’s unpleasant experience.

I just finished reading the simple law "HB - 847 Final Version" to see what type of provision it had for analysis. THERE WERE NONE! The sponsors of the bill should be embarrassed with the final outcome and how little the law does to benefit the lake.

How do we come to a view of collecting statistics to validate “speed”? Safety is an ending Trump card in the play but the statistics do not support it. Noise, land erosion, and many categories of bonehead moves seem to be better plays for real statistical analysis.

A few more hours of work and I can start the commute to d'lake....
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-29-2009), chipj29 (08-28-2009), DoTheMath (08-28-2009), hazelnut (08-28-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-28-2009), Seaplane Pilot (08-28-2009), Tyler (08-29-2009), VtSteve (08-28-2009)
Old 08-28-2009, 12:12 PM   #264
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default Nice work APS!

The drama is incredible!

You definitely deserve one of these:
Attached Images
 
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-28-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-28-2009), Tyler (08-29-2009), VtSteve (08-28-2009)
Old 08-29-2009, 09:44 AM   #265
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 224
Thanks: 39
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?
That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-30-2009, 08:52 PM   #266
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,449
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?
I saw this boat today, it's about 50' long, and was roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin with a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feeling of being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 08-31-2009 at 07:54 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 08-30-2009, 09:18 PM   #267
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
I saw this boat today, about 50', roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin wih a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feelng a being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It's was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.
Amazing. Is that boat in a "Totally different League" or what? So is the boat huge and noisy or can you hardly hear it? Not many boats I've ever seen with closed canopies are quiet, but maybe some are. So Less, what's the crime today? Was he Detached from the water? Do you think his Karma is not good enough for yours? Maybe we could have a law that measures the closeness a boat is to the water.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
NoBozo (08-31-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-31-2009)
Old 08-31-2009, 09:23 AM   #268
chmeeee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 90
Thanks: 19
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
Maybe we could have a law that measures the closeness a boat is to the water.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
chmeeee is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:25 PM   #269
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 224
Thanks: 39
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=VtSteve;104858]. So Less, what's the crime today? QUOTE]

The crime today was that somebody( over the weekend) from Bear Island frauduently called in to the MP that a high performance boat was speeding through a no-wake zone when in fact it was not. Just how far will they go? And, why would they waste the MP's time and what's worse, put other people at risk, by consuming valuable MP time responding to a hoax? Details to follow............................................ .....

Last edited by pm203; 09-03-2009 at 11:28 PM.
pm203 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to pm203 For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-31-2009)
Old 09-01-2009, 05:50 PM   #270
The Big Kahuna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gilford
Posts: 148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default I haven't noticed a difference!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtagrip View Post
I find it amazing that this SL law has all of a sudden with last years test and this years implemation has made it Shagri-La out there. Mass. has been trying to get people to buckle up for the last year or so and they are having trouble "obey" this law to buckle up.
I'm not buying it!
I have been out and about all summer in my GFBL, I personally have only gone over the speed limit twice this summer, once on my first trip out on the lake this year, my wife had to remind me of the speed limit because, forgot about it, and the second time I was out running a rain storm. I seem to be the only one out there not speeding, I am being passed left and right by everyone while I cruze around at 40, does everyone even know there is a speed limit because I have seem some monster boats going 80 + every time I have been out there, and smaller boats as well flying around at 50 +. I guess its like Rt 93, speed limit is 55 in some areas, but 75 - 80 seems fine to most.
The Big Kahuna is offline  
Old 09-03-2009, 08:19 PM   #271
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Originally posted by FatLazyLess
Quote:
I saw this boat today, it's about 50' long, and was roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin with a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feeling of being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.
The next group of boaters in their sights...large cruisers!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 09-20-2009, 06:10 AM   #272
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Thumbs down Disingenuous...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
"...The next group of boaters in their sights...large cruisers...!"
A disingenuous charge against Supporters: when excessive speed encounters oversized wakes, bad things happen.
ApS is offline  
Old 09-20-2009, 11:24 AM   #273
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
A disingenuous charge against Supporters: when excessive speed encounters oversized wakes, bad things happen.
I really don't think "Disingenuous" is the proper term. It's directed at the obvious continuation of such a group. Large cruiser wakes have been the bane of smaller boats since forever, not to mention shorefront property owners.

To get to where BI wants to be, and other supporters like yourself, you'd end up with all smaller boats with smaller engines, no cruisers, skiers going 18 mph behind fishing boats, and a ton of sailboats. As it is, most cruise between 25 and 35 mph, you slow down for large cruiser wakes, and sailboats continue on their merry way. Sailboats are also popular due to the nature of fuel expenses, and, boomers have more time to sail than before.

Disingenuous would be to drag your true feelings out for years, leaving bits and pieces of your agenda as trail markers. Disingenuous would be to indicate that the lake has calmed down markedly since your favorite law was passed, and then admit that boaters cruise rapidly through a NWZ daily still. Disingenuous would be to make it appear that there were accidents everywhere before the law, and never bring up actual accidents that did occur. Followed by a more than likely 25 or 30 mph accident at night, and label it high-speed.

Disingenuous actions by the supporter crowd are so numerous, and so constant, that their actions have to be stealth and surprise, erroneous reports, and outright lies to the media laced with scare tactics to the public. These are common tactics by people of low character, or ones that only seek to fulfill an agenda. The entire argument highlights what's wrong with many issues that confront the nation today. Many people seem to be trained in the political art of lying and fabrication. One of the primary reasons that nothing positive gets done, nor do many of the original issues said to be addressed, get addressed.

There was a real opportunity to actually do something positive for the lake and the people, but a small group of well-funded individuals that hates one group, decided to make it their own. The next two years will be enlightening, and I doubt that group will rise to the occasion.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-20-2009, 04:56 PM   #274
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
A disingenuous charge against Supporters: when excessive speed encounters oversized wakes, bad things happen.
Not if you know what you are doing...
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.30461 seconds