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 11-23-2010, 02:23 PM   #1
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 Bill Filed to Modify and Enhance Speed Limits in NH

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG


Safe Boaters of New Hampshire proposes an enhanced modification of Lake Winnipesaukee’s speed law to include the entire state.


For Immediate Release:

After two years of the current speed law on Lake Winnipesaukee, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has looked at the statistics, as the law originally passed mandated, and has seen that, as predicted by the Marine Patrol, the mandated speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee have made no difference.

The NH Marine Patrol handed out 20 speeding tickets during what everyone called the best boating season on Lake Winnipesaukee in years. That number of tickets is consistent with the Marine Patrol’s 2007 report showing less than 1 percent of boats using Lake Winnipesaukee exceed 45 miles an hour (the current speed limit) and none were clocked by radar going faster than 62.

In light of those findings Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has asked Senator Lou D’Allesandro (D) District 20, Goffstown and Manchester to file legislation that would enhance and modify the current law regarding speed on Lake Winnipesaukee with a focus on safety, not numbers. Along with Senator D’Allesandro the bill has received large bipartisan support with Senator Boutin and Senator elect Sanborn co-sponsoring from the Senate and over a dozen Represenatives from the House pledging support.

Among the enhancements to the law is an escalating fine structure, allowing a violator to pay a fine rather than the more expensive option forcing a Marine Patrol officer to be tied up in court. It also establishes a way to permanently ban habitual offenders from New Hampshire waterways.

The modification also provides for the enhanced ability of the Marine Patrol to get reckless and dangerous boaters off the water by more closely following existing US Coast Guard regulations regarding speed on the water. Currently a Marine Patrol officer has to rely on radar or following a boat during a chase to determine whether the vessel is exceeding the “posted” speed limit. The modification eliminates those requirements and allows the Marine Patrol officer to use his/her training to determine if a boat operator is traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions without regard to actual miles per hour.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that these enhancements and modifications will bring Lake Winnipesauke and the rest of New Hampshire’s lakes, ponds and rivers more into line with the rules enforced by the US Coast Guard along New Hampshire’s coastal waters and in most of the rest of the country thereby reducing confusion among boaters, allowing the Marine Patrol to identify and remove dangerous boaters from the lake, and make the waters of New Hampshire even safer.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-23-2010), classic22 (11-23-2010), Commodore (11-25-2010), DEJ (11-24-2010), Gilligan (11-24-2010), Hammond (11-24-2010), Hezman (11-23-2010), ishoot308 (11-23-2010), jarhead0341 (11-24-2010), jmen24 (11-24-2010), Just Sold (11-23-2010), LIforrelaxin (11-23-2010), MAXUM (12-01-2010), Pineedles (11-23-2010), rockythedog (11-23-2010), Ryan (11-23-2010), Seaplane Pilot (11-24-2010), Skipper of the Sea Que (11-24-2010), VitaBene (11-23-2010), VtSteve (11-23-2010), WeirsBeachBoater (11-23-2010), Wolfeboro_Baja (11-24-2010), Woodsy (11-23-2010)
Old 11-24-2010, 07:46 AM   #2
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 Laconia daily sun "article"

Safe Boater group gets Manchester senator to sponsor bill that would repeal big lake speed limit
By Michael Kitch
Nov 24, 2010 12:00 am
CONCORD — After roiling the Legislature for the past six years, the controversy over speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will resume when lawmakers return to the Statehouse in January.

On behalf of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, an organization formed in opposition to speed limits, Senator Lou D'Allesandro (D-Manchester) has filed legislation that would replace the fixed speed limits of 45 mph. in daylight and 30 mph. after dark with what is "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions." This same standard has figured in past debates about boat speeds, only to be rejected as too vague.

D'Allesandro, the deputy leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate, counts seven co-sponsors of his bill — two senators and five representatives —all Republicans. In addition, four other Republican representatives, including Dave Russell of Gilmanton, have expressed support for bill.

Scott Verdonck of Goffstown whose family owns property in Moultonborough is president of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. He characterized the legislation as "a modification," not a repeal, of the current law.

In 2008, after four years of debate, the Legislature set limits of 45 mph. and 25 mph. beginning on January 1, 2009, but, stipulated that without further legislative action they would repeal as of January 1, 2011. Last year the Legislature repealed the repeal while raising the nighttime speed limit by 5 mph.

As drafted the new bill would require vessels to proceed at "a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions." The conditions include visibility, traffic and weather as well as the characteristics of the vessel, especially its stopping distance, turning radius and draft.

In contrast to the speed limits, which apply only to Lake Winnipesaukee, the "reasonable and prudent" standard would apply to all inland water bodies and waterways throughout the state.

Verdonck said that the language mirrors rule six of the Navigational Rules prescribed by the United States Coast Guard, which he stressed would bring New Hampshire into conformity with most other states. Pointing to the 21 tickets written during the two years the speed limits have been enforced, Verdonck insists that "speeding is not an issue on the lake" and the law is unnecessary.

Sandy Helve of Nashua who summers on Bear Island in Meredith heads the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS), the group that spearheaded the effort to introduce speed limits. "The law works and works well," she said. "I am disappointed that legislators would want to change a law that's working." She stressed that speed is "a critical safety issue" and the limits have enabled people to pursue diverse activities on the lake, from swimming to kayaking, assured of their safety. While acknowledging the role of WinnFABS, Helve said that repeated surveys have shown that "many, many people from all part of the state support the speed limits."

"We've been fighting this issue for the past six years," Helve said. "We can't afford to sit back now."
.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-24-2010), Dblblkdiam (11-24-2010), MAXUM (12-01-2010)
Old 11-24-2010, 08:15 AM   #3
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Most readers will probably agree, that the so called "voting one's wallet" is usually a deciding factor when deciding how to vote on any one election of candidates or referendum on an issue.

Likewise, when it comes to the speed limits-no speed limits-Winnipesaukee decision, what you have for a boat is probably a big determining factor in how you feel about this issue.

So, here is a question for you, what's your boat?

Mine is a 1993 - 16' Alumacraft-side steer w/ a 40-hp outboard. It gets up on plane at about 18-mph? and has a top speed of maybe 35? Plus, I have a 13'6" Starwing sailboat, 17' Ranger row-canoe, and 16' Necky kayak which were all purchased as second hand, backyard bargain, oldy-moldy, el cheapo deluxo, fixer-uppers for $800, $200, & $200. ...
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 08:47 AM   #4
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Off topic

FLL. Please move your topic to another tread. This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 09:32 AM   #5
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
FLL. Please move your topic to another tread. This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.
Already we have a disagreement here....not a big surprise...

I'll keep this very brief. What's reasonable and proper for a 32' Baja Outlaw powered by twin 600-hp inboard-outboards is definately not reasonable and proper for a canoe, kayak, small sailboat, or small motorboat, and they all have to share the same water on Lake Winnipesaukee.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 11-24-2010, 10:05 AM   #6
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 930
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default Our Safest Season Threatened by SBONH...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
This tread is about reasonable and prudent use of your boat, not the size.
Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ˝-hour away from peaceful boaters.
ApS is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 12:47 PM   #7
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 497
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Already we have a disagreement here....not a big surprise...

I'll keep this very brief. What's reasonable and proper for a 32' Baja Outlaw powered by twin 600-hp inboard-outboards is definately not reasonable and proper for a canoe, kayak, small sailboat, or small motorboat, and they all have to share the same water on Lake Winnipesaukee.
You are comparing oranges with dump trucks here. Reasonable and proper in the 32' Outlaw that you describe would depend on a mulitude of conditions, including weather, other traffic, etc.
For example, going 45 MPH in a busy bay may not be reasonable and prudent on a Saturday, but in the Broads it might be perfectly fine. Just like being in a kayak in a nice quiet bay might be reasonable and prudent, but being in a kayak in the broads on a windy day is not.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 02:03 PM   #8
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Great point Chip.

As a point of reference, here is a Coast Guard link for navigation and rules set forth. This link provides for comparisons between the International and Inland rules. Overall, the rules are consistent with the COLREGS, which set the International rules for avoiding collisions at sea. I believe they've been in place for some 40 years or so.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesContent

Most of the rules are very straightforward, common sense. As most mariners know, safety and speed are relative to the conditions. There exist many inland bodies or water where speed limits and other such restrictions have been put into place. Many of these waterways still have far too many accidents. In most cases around the country, the accidents, and all too often, the fatalities resulting, occur for the same reasons, regardless of speed limits. But I don't want to debate speed limits, because I feel that everyone should be aware of the far more comprehensive boating safety rules contained in the above link.

Regardless of the written laws. Everyone should always be in the SACC.

Sober Aware Careful, Courteous

Copyright and Trademark pending, VtSteve
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 04:12 PM   #9
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Question Is the Devil in the Details?

It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....
Skip is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
christo1 (11-28-2010), sunset on the dock (11-25-2010), Yosemite Sam (11-24-2010)
Old 11-24-2010, 10:15 PM   #10
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
It is interesting that none of the three senators supporting the legislation to eliminate the recently enacted speed limits is from, or represents, the Lakes region directly. One is from Manchester, another from Hookset and the third from Chesire County in the far western part of the State.

I remember during the rhetoric of the debate that a number of individuals opposed to the implementation of speed limits decried the fact that many supporters (and voting politicians) were not "from the Lakes region".

Does SBONH have a list of elected or newly elected politicians that directly represent the greater Winnipesaukee watershed and are signing on to this legislation?

Also, has Director Barrett been contacted and if so what is the NHMP's opinion of legislation designed to repeal the speed limits?

Finally, when will SBONH post the exact language of these "enhancements" so the public can judge the validity of their claims to safety. That would be in addition to the language proposed in other bills SBONH claims to have a hand in. In particular I am very interested in the language of the Bill that will change the notification requirements for No Wake zones. I would like to see the legality of the criteria the proposed legislation would use to define "abutter", which is the crux of that particular Bill.

I think these would be very important questions for SBONH to have answers to, as it would seem to me that the supporters of retaining speed limits would be jumping all over these issues when they attack the proposed legislation.

I am hoping that in addition to vague press releases with very limited detail, SBONH practices what it preaches and will post all of these legislative details here on this thread that Don has provided as soon as they emerge from legislative services.

Like my grampa used to be fond of saying..."the Devil is always in the details".

Anxiously awaiting.....
Careful Skip, your colors are beginning to show beneath that robe of impartiality yours...

Was it not you who not long ago praised BearIslander and other SL proponents for the way that they promoted their cause and used NH laws to their advantage to persuade the state legislature and governer in Concord to enact the SL law? I could be in error, but I believe that you remained silent regarding their mode and plan to promote their desired result. Please explain how dissimilar the manner and method of SBONH is in pursuing their agenda?

As I read it, this particular press release it is no more vague than what Winnfabs used to support their agenda. IMHO, SBONH are not attempting to increase the speed limit, but are looking to give the Marine Patrol more latitude(ie an additional tool in their toolbox) to stop boaters who operate their craft at unsafe speeds--Mirroring a USCG rule of navigation.

Your Grandfather was a wise man. In like fashion, my father who I also consider to have discerning judgment would, in this instance, offer a different but no less appropriate comment..."be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)

Last edited by Yankee; 11-24-2010 at 10:30 PM. Reason: replaced reduce with increase
Yankee is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
DEJ (11-25-2010), gtagrip (11-25-2010)
Old 11-24-2010, 10:43 PM   #11
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Smile Pig in a poke?

Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.
Skip is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
christo1 (11-28-2010), Jonas Pilot (11-24-2010), sunset on the dock (11-25-2010), Yosemite Sam (11-25-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 12:22 AM   #12
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:36 AM   #13
Commodore
Member
 
Commodore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Thumbs up Reasonable and prudent makes nothing but good sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ˝-hour away from peaceful boaters.
Over-sized boats is all relative. You want to limit SIZE than address that with SIZE restrictions and not speed. You can have small vessels that go wicked fast. Faster than reasonable and prudent for some conditions.

APS, what is reasonable and prudent speed for a 15 foot Boston Whaler is different under the same lake conditions than for a 21 foot cuddy cabin or a 24 foot performance boat or a 26 foot cabin cruiser or that 56 foot Carver luxury yacht.

I don't think the 56 foot luxury yacht can get even close to the 30 or 45 mph speed limits but it is the only one that I think should go to the ocean.

Reasonable and prudent speeds for the boat and conditions is common sense in writing.
__________________
The Commodore
Commodore is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 08:43 AM   #14
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Smile Final thughts....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed! That is the crux of my point.

Thanks for posting the entirety of the bill, I had only read a paraphrased version of section (a). I have to generally agree with your opinion of it

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the current law or proposed bill, I believe that the pursuance of either is and was misguided. As I would agree that the burden of proof placed upon the officer is too great with this proposed bill, I would submit so it is with the current law, as shown in the rather limited number of citations given out to date.

IMO, neither have had (or woud have) any more effect upon the way people boat than the other, which is basically no effect at all.
Very good points!

The problem with the first Bill was how it was modified throughout its process and in the end included Statewide ramifications (boating offenses Statewide being included on your license, but failure to hold statewide hearings, especially on the seacoast).

This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!

This same debate played out a few years back in the snowmobile community. For those of you that sled you are aware of this State's 45 mph speed limit (exception being lakes) along with a number of other dependent speed limits. Some argued that this would take away from ridership. People would go to Maine where there are no limits. The limits would be unenforceable.

Years later everyone has adapted fine. And even though almost any modern snowmobile can go double, sometimes even triple the 45 mph limit the great folks at NH Fish & Game have proven that enforcement is possible.

Why does that matter? Because over time it has helped develop the belief that NH is a family friendly snowmobile community. It is a mantra stressed by Fish & Game, the NH Snowmobile Association, the Bureau of Trails and so on. I've witnessed it first hand and reasonable restricitions coupled with education and fair handed enforcement works.

But it took a number of years for the full effect to become apparent.

Quite frankly I do not see the Legislature repealing the current limits. A much more reasonable approach may have been to look at the 45 mph upper limit, or allowing an area like the Broads to have an exemption. Currently if you ride a sled you have no limit if you are on a frozen body of water, albeit there are reckless operation and other limits that still apply.

But I'm no fool. This proposal if passed as written will mean virtually no enforcement and the President of SBONH knows this. But it will probably be modified and once again have unforseen negative statewide ramifications, as the first Bill did. Coupled with the fact that I know a lot of people voted for the Legislature to tackle spending and tax issues, and not get bogged down right out of the gate tinkering with social issues.

Some enjoyed the thrill unbridled speed brought by boating in the past on Winnipesaukee with no limits. I don't condemn that mindset or the folks that enjoyed it. But a series of unneccesary accidents, whether related to speed or not, convinced the majority that additional rules needed to be put in place to curb abuse.

I may not agree with the 45/30 limits, but they are finite limits that I can easily measure and operate within.

The proposed legislation removes those finite and measurable limits, and subjects me at all times to the whim, fancy and mood that the observing officer may be in. To me that is much more unacceptable than the current law and in the end will be the flaw that leads to it being inexpedient to legislate. Believe it or not many Bills emerge each session from Legislative Services poorly thought out and not ready for prime time. This is just another example of the same.

That's my $.02 and I'll bow out now and consider other people's opinions. However if this Bill does somehow wind its way too far through the process I'll guess I'll have to send my best suit to the cleaners as a trip to Concord will definitley be in my future!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone....
Skip is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
christo1 (11-28-2010), sunset on the dock (11-25-2010), Turtle Boy (11-25-2010), Yosemite Sam (11-25-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 08:59 AM   #15
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
This Bill is doomed as its primary lobbying group, SBONH, seems determined to develop it in as much secrecy as possible while the President of the organization wants to throw deceptive press releases to the public, but only discuss the merits on his terms and his website. Trying to control the debate in that matter will only stiffen resistance to him & his organization. I know it has caused me to lose any trust in the organization as long as it is helmed by him!
I hope that the President of the SBONH reads your comments because you are so on the mark!

Thanks Skip!
Yosemite Sam is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Yosemite Sam For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (11-25-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 09:52 AM   #16
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
Time and again, we've already witnessed what "reasonable and prudent use" of over-sized boats has done.

Take them to the ocean, it's only a ˝-hour away from peaceful boaters.
Yup, it's the boats fault. It drove it's self all on it's own.
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:59 AM   #17
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.

But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!

Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.

And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.

Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?

But they haven't, as of yet anyway.

I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.

In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.

Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states "...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."

I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".

When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!

Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.

I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.

Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:


SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL

RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:

X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.
So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:14 AM   #18
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Smile Fair, honest and open debate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtagrip View Post
So, the first wrong was O.K., but the second is not? Can we say double standard!
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip
Skip is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (11-25-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 10:21 AM   #19
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have rational and mature debate within these particular threads, and I hesitate to respond.

However....

If you take the time to read and understand my post you will see that I beleive the existing legislation is flawed. And I believe there are some reasonable methods that could be applied to meet a compromise that would be palpable to people on both sides of the equation (as I suggested, relaxing of restrictions in the Broads and rethinking the upper 45 mph limit).

The solution that will never make it through the Legislature is complete repeal of the current speed limit regulations, regardless of the cute phrases used to mask the word "repeal".

I just hope (and challenge) that the President and members of SBONH change course and from this point forward be perfectly honest and open with the public about their intents.

Its known in the political trade as establishing credibility.

Now it is time for me to start preparing for the Pats game and on to a fabulous dinner with family and friends!

Happy Thanksgiving All,

Skip
My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:37 AM   #20
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtagrip View Post
My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?
Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:48 AM   #21
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.

And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.

In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.

SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.

It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.

Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.

Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.

Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....

Skip
Skip, I appreciate your response. And not to split hairs here, however, Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are inland waterways and governed by the CG. Now I realize that they border Canada and the CG presence is needed in this situation. None the less, still inland waterways.

Have a great Thanksgiving with your family!
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 11:13 AM   #22
classic22
Member
 
classic22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 40
Thanks: 6
Thanked 81 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Skip,

This post is a response to some of the questions you raised regarding the proposed Speed limit modification bill that was recently filed.

As you probably know, press releases are not designed to give you every detail of the message it is releasing, by their nature they cannot. It affords the reader to get some basic information, and points them to the SBONH website for further information.

Repeal and replace is verbage used for any bill that exists and is being modified, and is not indicative of the bill itself.

The wording in this legislation is taken directly from the US Coast Guard rule. I think we can all agree that the Coast Guard is the pre-eminent organization regarding boating safety. The Coast Guard and our own State marine patrol use this rule effectively every day on our coastal waters and coastal waters around the country. I have not heard of any complaints of our marine patrol abusing this rule in their enforcement on our coastal waters, so I am confident that this would carry to our inland waters with out concern.

SBONH has consulted with our marine patrol and other marine safety organizations before this bill was drafted.

This bill unlike the law in effect today would become a statewide law, hence the reason for getting state wide support from legislators. But in answer to your question yes the bill does have “lakes region support” with two reps signing on as co-sponsors.

Our organization SBONH is open to all that have an interest in boating safety. Skip, since you have shown an interest, SBONH would welcome you to join us to help shape current and future legislation as we move forward. SBONH has grown in to a well respected organization thru out the state despite what you may hear from a few detractors on this site. Happy Thanks giving every one!
classic22 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to classic22 For This Useful Post:
DEJ (11-25-2010), LIforrelaxin (12-01-2010), VtSteve (11-28-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 01:15 PM   #23
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

Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Skip (11-26-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 03:31 PM   #24
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default Dare I mention that BI is the pot calling the kettle black in this discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) : language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. (Wikipedia)

Calling legislation that would repeal the 45/30 speed limit a "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL" is doublespeak.

I dislike it when people try and hide their intentions behind politically correct or misleading language. The meat of the current speed limit is in the 45/30 numbers, the rest is fluff. Any legislation that eliminates specific speed limit numbers is a REPEAL. Pure and simple!
Yes, analogous to supporting a SL bill in a misguided attempt to eliminate a certain type of boat because of its involvement in a personal tragedy. A tragedy whose sequence of events had nothing to do with the boats capabilities, but was a direct result of an impaired captain behind the wheel.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 07:43 PM   #25
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

Personally I would LOVE Skip and Bear Islander to become
Members to assist with future legislation. There are no two members that I respect more with regard to knowledge of the law and legislation process. I'd love it if SBONH had you two as consultants.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 08:44 PM   #26
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Yes, analogous to supporting a SL bill in a misguided attempt to eliminate a certain type of boat because of its involvement in a personal tragedy. A tragedy whose sequence of events had nothing to do with the boats capabilities, but was a direct result of an impaired captain behind the wheel.
I have said this before, but I guess I have to say it again. Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to. I have many reasons to support the SL the primary one being children's camps.

This past summer OCDACTIVE stopped by my place on Bear for a beer. We had a nice talk and then he took my son and I for a ride on his performance boat. He even let me take the controls for a short time. It was a lot of fun. If there was a way to exempt him and other responsible performance boaters from the speed limit I would be in favor of it. There isn't.

You may find it easier to believe that speed limit supporters hate performance boats. The truth is more complex.
Bear Islander is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (11-25-2010)
Old 11-25-2010, 10:45 PM   #27
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Spped limits

I seen a number of boaters this summer that is speeding around thinking it is OK as they are under 45 mph. Yet under the circumstances it is not reasonable and prudent! I and others witness this through the 6 pack, graveyard, the narrows at center harbor and even at the Weirs Channel! This has to stop! Some people just don't get it! I even argue with a guy at the Town Docks that just because the speed limit is 45 mph, it does not mean he can speed around the lake as long as he is under 45!

Marine Patrol present this summer is way down. meanwhile the boneheads are having a blast. Because of this I don't feel any safer on the lake with the new law. We need a law with teeth! This modification is a step in the right direction.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-27-2010, 10:32 AM   #28
RTTOOL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Meredith,NH.-Nashua,NH
Posts: 82
Thanks: 78
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broadhopper View Post
i seen a number of boaters this summer that is speeding around thinking it is ok as they are under 45 mph. Yet under the circumstances it is not reasonable and prudent! I and others witness this through the 6 pack, graveyard, the narrows at center harbor and even at the weirs channel! This has to stop! Some people just don't get it! I even argue with a guy at the town docks that just because the speed limit is 45 mph, it does not mean he can speed around the lake as long as he is under 45!

Marine patrol present this summer is way down. Meanwhile the boneheads are having a blast. Because of this i don't feel any safer on the lake with the new law. We need a law with teeth! This modification is a step in the right direction.
get a life ; broadhopper . You go out of yourway argue with someone at a dock because he was in law .
RTTOOL is offline  
Old 11-27-2010, 04:08 PM   #29
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I have said this before, but I guess I have to say it again. Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to. I have many reasons to support the SL the primary one being children's camps.

This past summer OCDACTIVE stopped by my place on Bear for a beer. We had a nice talk and then he took my son and I for a ride on his performance boat. He even let me take the controls for a short time. It was a lot of fun. If there was a way to exempt him and other responsible performance boaters from the speed limit I would be in favor of it. There isn't.

You may find it easier to believe that speed limit supporters hate performance boats. The truth is more complex.
Not the ”I’m afraid for the campers” schtick again…I know, I know, all those menacing cowboys in their gawd awful, dangerous, fast and loud boats endangering, no terrorizing those rich and defenseless campers!

Seriously, it’s not complex at all. The needs of the entitled few caused them use their money and influence for their own selfish ends before a quiescent public was fully aware of your grand scheme. It's a sad truth that is repeated all too often in our society. Spin it any way you like, the fact is that the Hathaway accident sparked into motion the arrogance of you and others of the same opinion the desire to eliminate powerboats from the Lake. Performance boats are the only the first type on your agenda. If you had your way there would be no power boats allowed on the lake at all. Except of course for the privileged few like you who own island property.


But you didn’t count on a grass roots group such as SBONH gaining as much traction as they have, did you? It’ll be interesting to see your next move.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
Old 11-27-2010, 10:09 PM   #30
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default BI valid point

We have 20 mph speed limits when approaching schools in NH. We should be able to have 20 mph speed limit aproaching summer camps. Or steer way the heck away from them, which I do for years.

45 mph near a summer camp is way too fast so this 45 mph speed limit is not the best idea to protect the campers. Perhaps placing bouy(s) where boaters have to steer away from the front of the camps is a better method than speed limits? Declaring between bouys and the camps NWZ? That is the step in the right direction. I don't see camps in the middle of The Broads.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-27-2010, 11:02 PM   #31
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
... those rich and defenseless campers!... ...the Hathaway accident...
1. Of the three camps on or near Bear Island, two are operated by the YMCA and the third by the Girl Scouts of America. Not exactly rich kids camps. And they all offer camperships (free tuition) to low income families.


2. His name was Hartman.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 11-28-2010, 10:53 AM   #32
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

BI, I know your opinions for what needs to be changed on the lake, and your vision for the lake in general, is quite a bit more complex and different in many ways than the traditional SL supporter. Some things I agree with you about, others, not so much. But when you don't hide your intentions, it's good to hear them.

I fully understand what happened with the Hartman tragedy, and I only hope there is some way to prevent another tragedy like that one. I disagree with what many proposed as a solution to those problems, which are a curse on waterways everywhere. There are two facets of the case that seem to be prevalent in many of those cases, but certainly not all.

1) Drinking
2) Night time

I suggest people read, once again, the facts of that case, in particular the appeals Judge opinion. I will not drag that case on the thread again.

What's needed everywhere is to get the cowboys and drunks and careless people off the water. The speed limit does not address those people, whether they are being cowboys in a bowrider or a pontoon boat. I fully understand the knee-jerk reaction of people in the cases talked about the most. Unfortunately, the SL supporters did a great disservice by not addressing the facts of the cases, or even the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. They mostly supported legislation because they were angry towards a group of people, a small group at that.

The CG Rule 6 provides LEO's with a great deal of latitude in enforcing the safety aspects of boating. They also form the very basis for my own boating rules. The CG navigation rules apply equally well on inland waterways as they do in the ocean. Obviously, the ocean lends itself to different interpretations and circumstances.

People that don't understand the CG Rule 6 should not be on the water in a boat, IMNSHO. There are many people that boat within the Winni speed limits that also should be talked to my a MP, or simply ejected.

It's really too bad that the people that were overly anxious in getting their little SL law in place, did absolutely nothing else to promote safe boating. They also developed a fairly course relationship with the MP, who would ultimately be responsible for enforcing it. It seems that many problems have been pointed out, but very few solutions proposed. One of the very reasons that an organization was founded to address common sense solutions, for everyone, not just them.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (11-28-2010), Ryan (11-28-2010)
Old 11-28-2010, 07:16 PM   #33
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 930
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Unhappy Irony...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Mr. Hartman was a Bear Island neighbor but not a friend. I knew him to say hello to.
1) He could have been your pilot at American Airlines...and to have retired after forty years as a professional in air travel, he ends up fatally crushed off Bear Island by a professional in the Marina business.

2) Many didn't know him.

http://tinyurl.com/293nwh
ApS is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 10:32 AM   #34
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default What the point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) He could have been your pilot at American Airlines...and to have retired after forty years as a professional in air travel, he ends up fatally crushed off Bear Island by a professional in the Marina business.

2) Many didn't know him.

http://tinyurl.com/293nwh
I know airline pilots who have put in 40, 50 years flying only to get 10 cents on the dollar in pension. Their company went bankrupt. One is working retail for $10 an hour in town.

Mrs Hartmann is a good friend of my girl friend. She ask that the incident do not get dragged into the speed limit debate. Having said this before on this site, the majority of the folks here go by her wish. You and other trolls keep bringing this up!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
DEJ (11-29-2010), Pineedles (11-29-2010), Ryan (11-29-2010)
Old 11-29-2010, 02:26 PM   #35
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
1. Of the three camps on or near Bear Island, two are operated by the YMCA and the third by the Girl Scouts of America. Not exactly rich kids camps. And they all offer camperships (free tuition) to low income families.
The two YMCA/YWCA camps located on the rising sun side of Bear Island, Camp Lawrence and Camp Nokomis look to be loaded full of campers, while the Girl Scout camp, Camp Monotomy, which is on the mainland opposite Bear Island looks to be a heavily treed wilderness and swampy area from the road and has not been operating as a traditional girls camp for aproximately five years or more. The gate at the entrance is padlocked closed for about 355 out of 365 days/year.

In the past when it was operating it was not unusual to see a few of the girl scout councilors sitting or standing just outside the gate smoking a cigarette which I assume was due to a 'no smoking' policy within camp property.

I tried to find a website for Camp Menotomy, Meredith NH, but with no success.

It is a large large area with a large totally treed and undeveloped waterfront, and presumably pays no property taxes because it is owned by the Girl Scouts. And at the same time, it is a non-operating camp with no Girl Scout campers, councilors, activities.......no-nothing....just a large empty wilderness area that is home to at least one black bear, a number of deer, and a fox or two. The 'no hunting signs' are posted all along the perimeter Meredith Neck Rd.

It is a terrific waterfront area for kayaking, canoing, and fishing. Large big rocks, boulders & outcroppings are pretty common along the waterfront area. It all looks like a set from a King Kong movie or something!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:29 PM   #36
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
...Mrs Hartmann is a good friend of my girl friend. She ask that the incident do not get dragged into the speed limit debate. Having said this before on this site, the majority of the folks here go by her wish. You and other trolls keep bringing this up!
APS didn't bring it up. Yankee did in post #24.

It is usually anti-SL people that bring it up because they believe this is the reason we have speed limits. The truth is they are wrong, but they will not let it go.

My preference is that we drop this subject forever. However, in the future, if someone makes this false claim, expect me to respond.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 12-01-2010, 12:24 PM   #37
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Apologize

I apologize in this thread. I'm not about to go to the other threads and see who's first. I'm sick of hearing this bull crap.

I just can't find it a coincidence when WinnFabs was formed shortly after the Littlefield accident. Sandy Helves, one of the WinnFabs founders, is a Bear Island resident and she have brought this accident up in a number of her speeches in the public hearings. Can't say she represent 'Bear Island' as I know a number of residents who are against the SL.

BTW APS, Littlefield is in the insurance business, he is only a nephew of the marina owner. Another accusation.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
Yankee (12-01-2010)
Old 12-01-2010, 12:27 PM   #38
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTTOOL View Post
get a life ; broadhopper . You go out of yourway argue with someone at a dock because he was in law .
This guy thinks NWZs and 150 ft rule is irrelevant. He thinks the 45/15 SL law will protect him. Who wants to live now!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 08:27 AM   #39
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default Headline C-Monitor December 2

howdi....hey check out today's www.cmonitor.com and its' front page "Brakes on boat speed limits" top story along with a boat & water photo....the photo looks like it was taken from an airplane or maybe from the Harry Hood "drink milk" blimp??? Ok, enough with that and on to some highly relevant and intelligent speed limits comments....I'm think'n good today but ain't got nuth'n to say now?

Ok, but here's someone with an intelligent e-mail comment from the bottom of this Concord Monitor front page article.
.........

Marine Speed by hoytbrook 12/02/10 6:38am

As a cottage owner on a small lake and former board member of our protective association, I have personally witnessed some terrifying incidents related to speed. Nearby Sunapee Lake has also had a lot of dangerous boat activity. Lack of recorded arrests and fines is probably due to a lack of manpower on a small staff of marine police. If the new Republican majority thinks that taking away the speed limits in support of a hazy definition of safe operation, they ought to spend a weekend day/night on one of our larger lakes. I wonder if these people have grandchildren who have been endangered by reckless boaters!!!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 10:35 AM   #40
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Barrett said speed on the lake wasn't a problem before the limits were passed, and the small number of violators suggests to him that it is still a minor concern.

Well we knew that. Interestingly enough, I believe all three accidents (at least 2), were too fast for conditions. I also take exception to people that seem to think the CG rule is vague or hard to interpret.

Any boater that can't understand CG Rule 6, should not be on the water. Period.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 11:03 AM   #41
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Ok, but here's someone with an intelligent e-mail comment from the bottom of this Concord Monitor front page article.
That's funny that you find a comment intelligent. Here is something from the actual article that I found "intelligent":

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Barrett, who oversees the state Marine Patrol as head of the Division of Safety Services
"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast"
and

Barrett said speed on the lake wasn't a problem before the limits were passed
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 11:17 AM   #42
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 11:46 AM   #43
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 sunset on the dock View Post
There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase
BIM recently wrote another in a series of derogatory posts, the last one deriding some of us for saying bad things about him. The above is yet more proof why some of us continue to do so. The entire boating community seems to be doublespeak to you guys. Yet whenever you post, it's not true.

One would think that someone who had claimed to be not only a sailor, but also spent 1,000 or 2,000 hours a season on the water would know something about CG Rule 6.

Instead, he chooses to accuse others of being wild drunks. Nice guy your friend "Ed". I still wonder why the papers allow him to use so many different names

Try to clean up the act boys.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 12-02-2010, 04:08 PM   #44
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 sunset on the dock View Post

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase
A "rumor" apparently created by Ed Chase himself? This is similar bad behavior that TB was caught engaging in. Notice how he never gave a proper response to the insane accusations he posted.

Now who was it that posted a huge thread containing a list of what he said were mean things? That's correct, the very same person that posts lies like the above.

Hint: That's why some of us say things like that about you

These aren't just little white lies meant to be funny, nope, their Giant Big Whoppers of lies that are made up by people fearing that they will be uncovered again. Thankfully, the Big Whopper Lies are being stated in public.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
DEJ (12-02-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 04:26 PM   #45
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 213
Thanks: 15
Thanked 87 Times in 53 Posts
Default Rumors

Is there any truth to the rumor that Elchase, Bearislandmoose, Ed Chase and Warren Clark are all one and the same person and that in post number 235 in the Barber’s Pole thread, one Bearislandmoose stated unequivocally that:

“In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now.”

It seems that in addition to being factually challenged, this person is also identity challenged.
winni83 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to winni83 For This Useful Post:
DEJ (12-02-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 05:24 PM   #46
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase
The editor of Laconia Daily Sun should have enough journalistic integrity to refuse to print such manure. I have a lot of business aquaintances who advertise in the Sun, so if they keep this up I will urge these people to stop advertising in this rag. While they're at it, I suppose SBONH will sponsor a bill to make everyone sail and kayak naked (and why not drunk too). This will be the next embellishment by ELMOOOSECHASER! I want some of whatever MOOSEMANCHASER is smoking.
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
DEJ (12-02-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 05:48 PM   #47
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
There seems to be a lot of press today about the SL like the following in the LDS. I feel beneath the humorous exterior of this letter is a clever and apt analogy as to why the new SL legislation may have trouble gaining much traction in Concord....that and the fact that our reps and senators, as I understand it, have become weary so many years of arguing this legislation. The letter underscores the "doublespeak" that has been alluded to in this forum. JMO

Letters
Is the 'safe' boating crowd really trying to repeal DWI law?
Dec 02, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Any truth to the rumor that the "safe" boating gang is filing another "safety enhancement" bill, this one to repeal our Boating-While-Intoxicated law, eliminating defined blood alcohol limits in favor of allowing boaters to "use their own judgment and drink till they don't think they are sober enough to helm a boat, according to prevailing conditions"?

Ed Chase
You can't just make this stuff up. Oh wait, I guess you can!
gtagrip is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to gtagrip For This Useful Post:
DEJ (12-02-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 06:31 PM   #48
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default Well let's see

What did our gang of merry little SL supporters do in recent days.

They lied about me sending a PM (by now, most know no such thing happened)

They lied about me threatening them (again, nope)

They lied about me being this weird gun owner (nope, none of them)
(They also continue to lie on another site about this, posted as fact. Thanks El

Now they lie on this forum and in others, , and in the newspaper, about a safe boating organization supporting a new law about eliminating BUI laws.

(This is particularly interesting since a famous accident on Winni occurred after the perpetrator was drinking to excess in a WINFAB founder's bar. All receipts turned up missing).

I repeat BIM. Exactly what was incorrect about labeling many of you as liars? Yes, that's exactly what I call people in person that engage in this sort of behavior.

Interesting lives these people live.


So there's what I have guys, just through today, and it's an abbreviated version.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
DEJ (12-02-2010), Ryan (12-03-2010), Seaplane Pilot (12-02-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 07:30 PM   #49
Bearislandmoose
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Thanks: 3
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
What did our gang of merry little SL supporters do in recent days.

They lied about me sending a PM (by now, most know no such thing happened)

They lied about me threatening them (again, nope)

They lied about me being this weird gun owner (nope, none of them)
(They also continue to lie on another site about this, posted as fact. Thanks El

Now they lie on this forum and in others, , and in the newspaper, about a safe boating organization supporting a new law about eliminating BUI laws.

(This is particularly interesting since a famous accident on Winni occurred after the perpetrator was drinking to excess in a WINFAB founder's bar. All receipts turned up missing).

I repeat BIM. Exactly what was incorrect about labeling many of you as liars? Yes, that's exactly what I call people in person that engage in this sort of behavior.

Interesting lives these people live.


So there's what I have guys, just through today, and it's an abbreviated version.
Oh shut up already. Go back to Vermont and worry about Lake Champlain. (I really wish the moderator would let this one through...I'm just so sick of this guy's garbage). Blah blah blah blah blah. Put a sock in it.
Bearislandmoose is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Bearislandmoose For This Useful Post:
Turtle Boy (12-03-2010)
Old 12-02-2010, 09:54 PM   #50
jarhead0341
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Thanks: 31
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winni83 View Post
Is there any truth to the rumor that Elchase, Bearislandmoose, Ed Chase and Warren Clark are all one and the same person and that in post number 235 in the Barber’s Pole thread, one Bearislandmoose stated unequivocally that:

“In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now.”

It seems that in addition to being factually challenged, this person is also identity challenged.
you can probably add slingshotengaged as another name...... if it counts from another forum
jarhead0341 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to jarhead0341 For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (12-02-2010)
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 05:40 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.50105 seconds