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 01-30-2008, 05:27 PM   #201
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY THAT SPACEFLIGHT IS DANGEROUS!

Full disclosure requires me to explain that I am only considering accidents that are rocket-to-rocket, occur in the stratosphere, under moonlight, carry six passengers and involve air launched, liquid fueled rockets.

I am distressed to learn that my flight does not meet the NHRBA definition of the word astronaut. I will console myself with the knowledge it does meet NASA's.
Finally... a sense of humor! I don't care who you are thats funny!

Bear Islander... Don't you think turn about should be fair play? I figure if you want to use boating accidents that occurred all over the country and apply them to laws that you think we should have here in NH, even though here in NH we have only had 1 fatal accident in the last 5 years. I figure I should be able to use that same argument to ban you from enjoying a personal liberty!

I am not going to say your lying, but to be truthful, while you may meet Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic definition of Astronaut, your flight does NOT meet the definition of Astronaut according to the NASA website.

The pilots of the rocket may meet the definition of astronaut, (see my paragraph below) however, you as $200,000 passenger/cargo do not.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/astronaut_worldbook.html

"The term astronaut also has a meaning that is not connected with NASA activities. In the 1960's, the United States Department of Defense AWARDED the rating of astronaut to military and civilian pilots who FLEW aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers). Seven test pilots received this rating for flights in the X-15 rocket plane. Flights of the X-15 ended in 1968."

To think that because you can afford to to pay $200,000 you should be able to have the same title as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Alan Shepard, etc is absolutely absurd! It is an absolute insult to those who EARNED thier right to call themselves ASTRONAUT by being the best of the best!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 06:18 PM   #202
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

According to Websters I am an astronaut already.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astronaut

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

Anyway it's just a name. Doing it is what's important.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:29 PM   #203
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

BI,
If you want your $200,000 thrill to last a lot longer , go buy a nice performance boat and see what it's all about
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:54 PM   #204
sum-r breeze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH
Posts: 350
Thanks: 116
Thanked 132 Times in 69 Posts
Default Zoom,Zoom,Zoom

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.
Amen, Brother....Amen

The Breeze
sum-r breeze is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 08:49 AM   #205
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Pedestrians are not allowed on highways. And double murder with suicide is against the law everywhere. Swimming across the lake is legal.

Common sense and good judgment argue against swimming far from shore. The LAW requires the boater to keep a proper lookout.
Wrong!Pedestrians are not allowed on interstate highways.They are allowed any other highway.

I love that one,suicide is illegal everywhere.Guess what,going over headway within 150 ft is a violation already too!!!

So what about you risking other peoples lives with your risky behavior?It looks like we should set limits on your activities so in the unlikely chance you get stranded,someone might die trying to rescue you.This big brother crap has to stop.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 01-31-2008, 09:14 AM   #206
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

If a mountain climber in Antarctica needs rescue, it can only come from the other climbers that have already accepted that same risk. Part of that risk is that you may die rescuing others.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with enacting a boating speed limit on Winnipesaukee. I can understand you are frustrated by recent events, but equating apples and oranges is not the solution. And your example is more like apples and penguins.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 09:31 AM   #207
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
According to Websters I am an astronaut already.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astronaut

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

Anyway it's just a name. Doing it is what's important.
Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 10:09 AM   #208
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 Woodsy View Post
Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy
Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 10:28 AM   #209
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.
Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 11:30 AM   #210
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default That's low

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.
From the Wiki entry for Lisa Nowak

"...received a BS degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. Nowak received a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, and a degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering in 1992 from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California."

"Nowak received her commission from the U.S. Navy in 1985, and became a naval flight officer in 1987. After her postgraduate studies, Nowak entered Aerospace Engineering Duty and the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. She logged over 1,500 hours of flight in over 30 different aircraft during her career in the Navy, and obtained the rank of captain."

"Nowak was selected to be an astronaut in 1996 and entered the NASA Astronaut Corps at Johnson Space Center in August of that year. She qualified as a mission specialist in robotics, and was assigned to mission STS-118. After schedule changes, she instead went into space on July 4, 2006 as a member of the STS-121 crew to the International Space Station. Nowak served as mission flight engineer, operated the shuttle's robotic arm during several spacewalks, and logged almost 13 days in space."

It's highly likely that Neil, Buzz and Alan take no issue with her being called an astronaut based on her credentials...I doubt anyone here knows how her personal problems may have affected their opinion of what kind of astronaut she was or what kind of person she is.
Rose is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:13 PM   #211
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 Woodsy View Post
Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy
The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:58 PM   #212
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.
Bear Islander...

I can't believe you don't research before you post....

You are wrong yet again... well at least your wrong according to the Virgin Galactic website.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/index.php

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsi...Picture&src=26

"Will I officially become an Astronaut?
Yes. The term Astronaut is a derived from Greek words Ajstron ("star") and nautes ("sailor"). The criteria for determining who has achieved human spaceflight vary. In the United States, people who travel above an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) are designated as astronauts. The FAI defines spaceflight as over 100 km (62 miles).Virgin Galactic passengers will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and may recieve FAA astronaut wings as well."

The key there is "may recieve". The FAA has only awarded 2 people with Commercial Astronaut Wings, and they were the pilots in command of the spacecraft. I highly doubt the FAA is going to award wings to hundreds of people just because they were wealthy enough to afford a $200,000 space ticket. Of course for $200K Virgin Galactic should give you a little gold trinket!

Have fun with those Virgin Galactic Wings!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 01:11 PM   #213
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

You can check the FAA site.

But I think yesterdays vote has more to do with your posts than anything else.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 01:39 PM   #214
Island-Ho
Senior Member
 
Island-Ho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 169
Thanks: 15
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Default The Bad 1%

You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!
Island-Ho is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 01:44 PM   #215
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 Island-Ho View Post
You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!
You may be right. I should not have allowed myself to be pulled into this silly argument.

Woodsy- You are correct! Declare victory if you like.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 07:31 PM   #216
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You can check the FAA site.

But I think yesterdays vote has more to do with your posts than anything else.

D' oh too soon to gloat Bear. Not sure I'd want to be a passenger in that craft's first, or even second or third mission.
ITD is offline  
Old 01-31-2008, 08:45 PM   #217
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Thumbs up

Bear Islander

Even though I'm not real happy with anyone associated with WinnFabs at the moment, I, for one, commend (and envy) your upcoming adventure on Virgin Galactic!

IMHO, if mankind is ever going to spread beyond this planet, space travel will need to transition into the realm of a commercial venture. You and others like you with the bucks and guts to support the earliest steps in that direction will play an important role in that transition!

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:07 PM   #218
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 135
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Guns don't kill people - people kill people! And it's not the boat - it's the operator, plain and simple. Be it a 38' boat that can go 100mph or a 20' that can go 60mph, or a 13' Whaler that can go 25mph. All can be dangerous in the wrong hands - I am 100% opposed to the speed limit and 100% in favor of boater education and the use of COMMON SENSE! Come on people - think about it, rules in place or not - you shouldn't pass another boat (of any kind) at speed inside a safe distance - currently stated at a resonable 150'. As PM203 said - coming out of the channel I do the same thing as he does, get WELL clear of the NWZ and other boats and then get up and going. HeII - we are boating, where's the fire - what's the hurry - enjoy the lake, enjoy your boat and the people you are with and relax. And, at the end of the day - if I want to head out to the broads and rip it up for a quick blast at speed - so-be-it! I see FAR MORE bone-head moves over the course of a summer by people in "family" boats - bow-riders and cruisers - than I do in "performance boats". You can't judge a whole group (or a "cult" as APS referred to us as... ) by one individual who made a poor choice one night! (operator error - not the boats fault). Water on the water, beer on the pier - be smart, use your head and we'll all be better off for it.
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 10:05 AM   #219
SS-194
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nottingham NH
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default common sense what a concept

Would'nt it be nice if we could teach COMMON SENSE. If everyone had common sense would we need any laws at all? I'am sorry but bone heads come in every size boat out there. But I would be more afraid of one going 100 mph than one going 25 mph. Can you tell me why anyone has to go that fast? I don't need a law to tell me not to drive drunk that is "COMMON SENSE" but hello lots of people drive drunk. So until everyone passes the common sense test i think we need some laws to help keep the bone heads in check. How can it hurt?
SS-194 is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 11:16 AM   #220
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-194 View Post
I don't need a law to tell me not to drive drunk that is "COMMON SENSE" but hello lots of people drive drunk. So until everyone passes the common sense test i think we need some laws to help keep the bone heads in check. How can it hurt?
You need to reread your own post.You just said we you don't need a law to tell you not to drive drunk but lots do anyway and then imply that speed limits will stop fast boats.You just countered your own argument.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 12:10 PM   #221
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 135
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-194 View Post
Would'nt it be nice if we could teach COMMON SENSE. If everyone had common sense would we need any laws at all? I'am sorry but bone heads come in every size boat out there. But I would be more afraid of one going 100 mph than one going 25 mph. Can you tell me why anyone has to go that fast? I don't need a law to tell me not to drive drunk that is "COMMON SENSE" but hello lots of people drive drunk. So until everyone passes the common sense test i think we need some laws to help keep the bone heads in check. How can it hurt?
Sorry - but by "boneheads" - whom would you be referring to!? The guy in the 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 mph and letting up a HUGE wake resulting in all kinds of near-by vessel and / or shore-line damage!? (yep, see it all the time). Or the person out in the kayak or row boat at night, paddling along at 3 mph, with no lights thinking this is safe and ok!? Oh, wait - maybe you mean the woman driving the 23' bowrider leaving the channel and mashing the throttle forward when there are 2 or 3 other boats within 50' of her!? Yep, I have seen all of this stuff - live and in person - and it just blows my mind. I agree - common sense can't be taught, but I still don't see how a speed limit will cure anything, esp. a "problem" that doesn't exist! Last time I checked - the most recent "bone head" move on the lake with catastrophic results occurred at 28 mph!?!? Let's enforce the laws we have that will really make a difference - not institute new ones that will just tax the current system and fix nothing!
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 10:32 AM   #222
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 930
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Question Nimby...

So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.
1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes!

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 11:44 AM   #223
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?


1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes!

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work.
Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...
codeman671 is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 12:20 PM   #224
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 codeman671 View Post
Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...
How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 04:02 PM   #225
SS-194
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nottingham NH
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
You need to reread your own post.You just said we you don't need a law to tell you not to drive drunk but lots do anyway and then imply that speed limits will stop fast boats.You just countered your own argument.
The point is you can't teach common sense. So we do need laws. Of course laws are not 100 %. But something is better than nothing. Also no one has explained to me why anyone has to go 100mph on a small body of water. And yes at 100mph Winnipesaukee is very small. One great thing about N.H. is we have a coast line with a huge ocean GO FOR IT.
SS-194 is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 04:32 PM   #226
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 Bear Islander View Post
How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?
I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 08:33 PM   #227
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 jrc View Post
I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.
So I guess you want to win this argument by inventing an extremely limited definition of "familiar with the lake". In you opinion what is required? Must they own a boat? How many hours of operation? How much horsepower?

Any legislator that lives in a Winnipesaukee town meets my definition. Your 9 out of 13 is the proof you are asking me for. If you listened to the debate in the house you should know that quite a few legislators from around the state stood up and related there Winnipesaukee experience and their support of speed limits. One was an ex Marine Patrol Officer. The debates are on the internet, go listen to them and hear the "proof" with your own ears.

I know a Senator that lives on Bear Island, does that count?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 09:55 PM   #228
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

I don't want to win any argument. You stated something as fact that really is just your opinion or at best a guess.

Yes, I know that you know a Senator that has a summer house on Bear Island. Surely you didn't base your "fact" only on input from this one person.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 10:29 PM   #229
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 jrc View Post
I don't want to win any argument. You stated something as fact that really is just your opinion or at best a guess.

Yes, I know that you know a Senator that has a summer house on Bear Island. Surely you didn't base your "fact" only on input from this one person.
Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 11:06 PM   #230
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 Bear Islander View Post
Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.
You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-08-2008, 11:38 PM   #231
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 jrc View Post
You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.
Sorry, it was codeman that made that claim. However you took up his argument so I don't see what difference it makes.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:23 AM   #232
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 135
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

SS-194, just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience, not from watching them on TV - maybe, have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph you keep referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:24 AM   #233
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
"...plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well....
Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience..."
As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH.

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot.

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...We can't teach common sense...but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters..."
I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???





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

...and you won't stink...

Last edited by ApS; 04-11-2008 at 05:46 PM. Reason: add one more panel, poor GPS placement
ApS is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 06:42 PM   #234
Seeker
Senior Member
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Effingham
Posts: 408
Thanks: 37
Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Acres per Second wrote:
At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???

I have a few problems with this one.
First, if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65.
Second, I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race. You must develop a scan of the instruments, whether in an aircraft, a race car or a boat, performance or otherwise. When you have enough experience you just know when something looks wrong (a needle in the wrong position) without really seeing it. If you can't, you should be doing something else.
Seeker is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 07:30 PM   #235
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

APS,

If you can't look at instruments at speeds between 50 and 130 MPH, then how do people fly jet planes? Last I heard they fly around 600 MPH, sometimes right over the lake.

Seriously, if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless.

If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless.

If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed.

Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly.

Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places.

This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now.
jrc is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 07:43 AM   #236
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 Acres per Second View Post
Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.
I don't live on Winni, or any other body of water. In fact, I rarely boat on Winni. In fact, my PWC barely exceeds the proposed 45 mph limit. But I am adamantly opposed to the speed limit bill. When I do go on Winni, I don't want to be worried about my speed. Not to mention that if the proposal passes on the largest lake in the state, I would venture to speculate that it would be passed on other bodies of water as well.
I will say it again...there is no data that proves that speed is an issue on Lake Winni.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 09:35 AM   #237
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
"...I rarely boat on Winni. In fact, my PWC barely exceeds the proposed 45 mph limit...if the proposal passes on the largest lake in the state, I would venture to speculate that it would be passed on other bodies of water as well..."
Now, why wouldn't you want to share the "lake of your choice" with Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
"...if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65..."
But your "Unlimited Speeds" proponents tell us 120 is safe for boats! Floatplanes have options on the water—and virtually no traffic over the lake.

All boats are stuck in one dimension and, among Winnipesaukee's cowboys, small boats are the most-stuck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
"...I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race..."
I'll guess you didn't have GPS, or have three engines in your Sports Racer—or an instument panel that looks like this one:



Most of us use lights like this one:


Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless..."
...you're writing of the "common sense" we aren't witnessing on the lake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless. ..."
Running across islands, running upside-down into cottages, running over other boats, and running ashore is reckless, but how many others got stopped by the NHMP?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed. ..."
One would think so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly. ..."
I direct your attention to the first post in this thread, which begins..."Law or no law...."

"Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places...."
How about "over 90"?

"...As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now..."
I'm slow on the water, too.

Watch for me—especially if I'm capsized.
ApS is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:04 AM   #238
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 135
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.


As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH.

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot.

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing).



I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???






Sorry - did you just compare a float plane and a boat in the same sentence when discussing speed limits ON the water!? If that is the path you're going to take... You mention you teach high-speed car control in automobiles, most recently at 130mph. Impressive, but I have traveled over land at 640mph. - yes really! Ohhhh, wait - I was in a commercial airliner... but it's the same thing, right!? Sorry - your stance is really starting to take on water here - pun intended.

As much as I envy your dad for piloting the boat that he did - back in the day (loved those boats) - and being an accomplished pilot, I'm not asking about your Dad here, I'm talking about you. I don't mix alcohol and boating either - water on the water, beer on the pier - a rule (and saying) instituted by the publisher of Poker Runs Magazine, Bill Taylor. All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how. There are only a few that you need to be concerned about in the short-term, oil & water - temp and pressure, as you know are the "life blood" of ANY internal combustion 4-stroke motor. Aside of that, all the rest are fuel level, speed, tach, boost, volts, etc...


As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well. Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position! Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine! Oh, and that boat is 32' long - a real 32', not including any platforms etc... And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so. And yes, throttles are in the back position as it is operated with foot throttles, and full drive and tab trim controls on the wheel so you can keep both hands on it. And we are wearing suspender style life vests - USCG approved BTW...
Attached Images
 
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 03:23 PM   #239
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 497
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default Hearing Monday April 21

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 04:02 PM   #240
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 chipj29 View Post
From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.
Darn, I'd love to be there but it's the same time as the Marathon.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:46 PM   #241
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I found these two articles, one from the Associated Press the other from the Boston Globe, interesting and very telling for the future funding of the New Hamsphire Marine Patrol.

First the AP article from March 28:
Boatbuilding hits the rocks

Then this article today from the Globe
Boat owners struggling to jump ship

(It appears you may have to register for free in order to view the articles) There are other articles that talk about stock prices for boat manufacturers taking hits, and West Marine Q4 profits way off as well but these two articles are representative, and funny neither one mentions a speed limit as the cause or even a factor!

So, how do these stories impact the Marine Patrol? As has been mentioned a number of times on this forum, the Marine Patrol gets its funding from NH boat registrations. That is why they have been doing direct mailings recently to boat owners asking you to register directly through the Marine Parol. That way they don't have to share the revenue with the towns.

If the economic factors that are effecting the boatbuilder and Massachusetts boaters looking to get out are also being felt in New Hampshire, the Marine Patrol budget will suffer.

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

In another thread someone asked how opponents to the speed limit would react if there are 22 speed related deaths this summer? I will pose the same question to you. How are you going to sleep at night if, because of the required radar patrols to enforce your speed limit, a boat is involved in an accident in an area where a Marine Patrol boat would normally be but can't be because it's doing a speed trap patrol and the victim of the accident dies?

Speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee but there are problems and taking the only law enforcement on the lake and cutting their patrol time to enforce an unnecessary law is just plain stupid!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:48 AM   #242
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 Decks, Distractions and Distorted Windshields...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position...!"
In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well.
The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine...And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."


On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how..."
Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?



Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
"...we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."
You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

ApS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:50 AM   #243
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 Acres per Second View Post


On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?


Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?





You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

I don't see the point of posting this stuff, the poster was talking about being in a boat at 110 mph...somewhere OTHER than Lake Winni.
Where were those pics taken? Were they on Lake Winni? Was the driver experienced? Was the driver in either instance perhaps impaired?

Maybe next you should post some pics of sailboat accidents that occurred somewhere around the globe.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:06 PM   #244
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 497
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default The horror!

These guys must have been going more than 45!

chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:37 PM   #245
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Center Harbor
Posts: 135
Thanks: 36
Thanked 41 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).


The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.





On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?


Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?





You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?


So, you never addressed YOUR experience with performance boats!? Your "racer" that you built at Brewster... was it really a 1/12 scale!? Or was it the little 10' footer I mentioned with the 15hp outboard on it!? Come on, you can tell us Establish some credibility with me (and the board) here before you continue, that way we know if you know what you are talking about with regard to performance boats - and didn't just read it in a magazine.

As for the boat I was in, Cali. Delta - and the canopies only look distorted from that angle (the back seat) - they are F16 canopies that are optically correct and provide a PERFECTLY CLEAR view when sitting in either of the two front seats. (I know, I was sitting in both of them - at different times - at some point in time that day). That is a boat that you see through the canopy - it was over 1 mile down, we slowed down long before getting to it. And the GPS - who cares where that is located, it offers NO information pertaining to safe operation, it just tells you how fast you're going. Again, if you had any real experience with performance boats, you'd know that.

As for the $1mil. dollar boat that you posted a picture of above, do you know the owner and / or story behind that picture!?!? I do! What was your point in posting that...!? It happened 2,000 miles from the lake.

In fact - your point in posting any of those pics!? I can start to post pics of car accidents, plane crashes, jet skis that are smashed up - even bowriders that are wrecked... again, what's the point!?

Tell you what - again, establish some credibility for yourself in the high performance boating world, and we can have an adult conversation - now that you "are all grown up". Until then, stop posting your propaganda - 'cuz all you're doing is clouding the facts...

As far as the incident as "told to you" on the long foredeck issue, that is - at best - second-hand information, again - pure speculation, and since you were not actually there, dismissed!
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 11:29 AM   #246
shooter
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: north eastern ma
Posts: 27
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default always a danger

yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shooter is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:13 AM   #247
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter View Post
yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 12:51 PM   #248
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!
Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 04-22-2008, 11:27 AM   #249
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 DoTheMath View Post
Guns don't kill people - people kill people! And it's not the boat - it's the operator, plain and simple. Be it a 38' boat that can go 100mph or a 20' that can go 60mph, or a 13' Whaler that can go 25mph. All can be dangerous in the wrong hands - I am 100% opposed to the speed limit and 100% in favor of boater education and the use of COMMON SENSE! Come on people - think about it, rules in place or not - you shouldn't pass another boat (of any kind) at speed inside a safe distance - currently stated at a resonable 150'. As PM203 said - coming out of the channel I do the same thing as he does, get WELL clear of the NWZ and other boats and then get up and going. HeII - we are boating, where's the fire - what's the hurry - enjoy the lake, enjoy your boat and the people you are with and relax. And, at the end of the day - if I want to head out to the broads and rip it up for a quick blast at speed - so-be-it! I see FAR MORE bone-head moves over the course of a summer by people in "family" boats - bow-riders and cruisers - than I do in "performance boats". You can't judge a whole group (or a "cult" as APS referred to us as... ) by one individual who made a poor choice one night! (operator error - not the boats fault). Water on the water, beer on the pier - be smart, use your head and we'll all be better off for it.
This post is DEAD ON! Seriously this should be the mantra for the lake. Slow down and enjoy yourselves. However, I do not begrudge those of you who want to rip it across the broads for a little kick. I don't have a fast boat but I've been in a few and it is a real kick. All the times I've been in them I've found the operators to be among the best and most considerate boaters.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 04-24-2008, 07:54 PM   #250
shooter
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: north eastern ma
Posts: 27
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC... View Post
Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...
Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.
shooter is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 07:35 AM   #251
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default You have the freedom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.
Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

You have the right to enter the scene along with everyone else. Your choice of which freedoms to exercise will be moderated by your personal level and tolerance of fear. Suck it up. Chances are very good that you won't be hit.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 10:06 AM   #252
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 Lakegeezer View Post
Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.
I don't think last July was a long time ago.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 10:10 AM   #253
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 701
Blog Entries: 9
Thanks: 39
Thanked 144 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I don't think last July was a long time ago.
The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!
WeirsBeachBoater is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 10:27 AM   #254
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 WeirsBeachBoater View Post
The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!
And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:03 AM   #255
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 Sorry, I couldn't let that one get by.

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:21 AM   #256
chmeeee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 90
Thanks: 19
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

It is of course not appropriate to pretend it never happened. If anything, attention should be brought to any safety issues related to alcohol. No other factors can really be attributed to an accident once you determine that alcohol was a factor however. If somebody is boating under the influence, its fairly safe to assume that they are ignoring any and all appropriate laws.

Also, regarding the kayak accident, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the kayakers abandoned ship well before they were hit, at a distance such that if they had not jumped out they could have just paddled out of the way. Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened?
chmeeee is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:24 AM   #257
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 Bear Islander View Post
Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.
Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:38 AM   #258
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

BI...

The accident did occur.... a powerboat struck an unlit, unmanned kayak! HOWEVER, it is not the fault of the powerboat operator. Under NH Law, USCG rules and COLREGS, the Kayak was a hazard to navigation simply by the virtue of not properly displaying a light. IF you want to go a step further, the paddler was intoxicated! I dont particulalry care that he was nude... although I do think it a bit odd and is probably related to his AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)!

Had the kayaker been sober, he probably would have been displaying the proper lighting, and the accident probably would not have happened, as the operator of the powerboat was SOBER!

Every accident scenario you post seems to have one common thread... Alcohol Intoxication!! I agree with Chmeee... anytime you have an accident and it is determined that alcohol is involved, all bets are off!

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

Last edited by Woodsy; 04-25-2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason: BI had a point... he didnt blame anyone! ;)
Woodsy is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:43 AM   #259
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 chipj29 View Post
Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.
The "Spin" is to post that it didn't happen. I will not defend the naked/drunk/unlit idiot in the kayak. However the accident DID happen.

I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.

But don't accuse me of spin when I point out the error. If one of you had pointed out the error would that have been spin?

Woodsy-

When did I blame anyone for this accident. You are going overboard (pun intended). I posted one sentence to remind people that it did happen. After that I was responding to criticism.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:49 AM   #260
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default There is more to this story than has been told

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.
OK - maybe we can count this one as a kayak accident, but its hard to use it as a reason to impose speed limits, boat size or HP limits - as those issues don't seem to be a factor in this case. This falls into the category of freedom to take risks (boating while dark, no lights, drunk and nude). The kayakers got caught on this one. Have we seen the offical accident report? Perhaps the kayakers abandoned ship as to not get caught nude, and therefore it was not an accident involving people, but just a case of a boat hitting lake debris at night.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 11:49 AM   #261
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Evenstar...

You do lots of everyday activites "At Your Own Peril"! Driving a car, crossing a street, riding a bicycle are all everyday activities that put YOU at risk of serious injury or death! A far greater risk than you have paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee on the BUSIEST of summer days! In all of those activities above, a 2000lb+ vehicle is passing within 10' of you at speed. Everyday people get injured or killed in NH as a result of those everyday activities! No kayaker has ever been struck and seriously injured or killed on Lake Winnipesaukee... EVER!

Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports!

You need to come up with a better argument...

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 01:21 PM   #262
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.
It happened, but its relevance as a data point in any way to what is being discussed here is zero. That you bring it up as a "reminder" or "argument" serves only to act as a distraction to a rational discussion.

A powerboat hit an empty, unlit kayak that was floating free in the water at night. The kayak was merely a piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 02:49 PM   #263
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 brk-lnt View Post
It happened, but its relevance as a data point in any way to what is being discussed here is zero. That you bring it up as a "reminder" or "argument" serves only to act as a distraction to a rational discussion.

A powerboat hit an empty, unlit kayak that was floating free in the water at night. The kayak was merely a piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person.
Wow! Now the kayak is a "piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person".

I posted my reminder to Lakegeezer because what he posted was incorrect, he has since agreed it was incorrect. However you guys have to make a mountain out of a mole hill and not let it go.

There is an unfortunate tendency on this forum to discount accidents. They are excused away for a number of reason, mostly alcohol. ALL accidents need to be considered when it comes to safety. Certainly alcohol abuse and other idiotic behavior must be taken into consideration. But an accident is still an accident.

I'm sorry if you don't like my "reminder". However in the future I will continue to post reminders whenever I think an accident is being overlooked, discounted or forgotten.

I went back to the thread on the accident. SIKSUKR knows the people in the boat. At the time he posted... "The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore." That doesn't sound like the kayak was a floating piece of debris. Sounds more like a close call.


The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 03:15 PM   #264
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool The actual statictics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
Evenstar...
Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports! You need to come up with a better argument... Woodsy
Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 03:21 PM   #265
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

I talked to one of the girls who was in the boat.They were traveling well under the proposed 25 mph night speed limit.There were 2 kayaks and a man and a woman operating them.They had no lighting and new the boat could not see them so they bailed out and swam to shore.The boat operaters spent some time trying to find the kayakers and finally found them on shore.They were actually hiding because of their embaressment.the boat finally took them on board and brought them to the camp they were renting.The camp owner had the nerve to try and recoup the damages from the boat operaters.This makes about as much sense as someone using this accident as an example for kayaker's fear for their safety.Pleeease.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 03:29 PM   #266
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I went back to the thread on the accident. SIKSUKR knows the people in the boat. At the time he posted... "The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore." That doesn't sound like the kayak was a floating piece of debris. Sounds more like a close call.


The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that.
So the kayaker did not see or hear the boat coming ahead of time? A properly lit powerboat with a gas engine? What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement.

They were not in an area where the boat was traveling at excessive speeds by any means and there has been no report to indicate otherwise. I do believe that the boater was not at fault, they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark. Had the person been in kayak I still think that a court would have a tough time finding the boater negligent.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 04:59 PM   #267
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
I talked to one of the girls who was in the boat.They were traveling well under the proposed 25 mph night speed limit.There were 2 kayaks and a man and a woman operating them.They had no lighting and new the boat could not see them so they bailed out and swam to shore.The boat operaters spent some time trying to find the kayakers and finally found them on shore.They were actually hiding because of their embaressment.the boat finally took them on board and brought them to the camp they were renting.The camp owner had the nerve to try and recoup the damages from the boat operaters.This makes about as much sense as someone using this accident as an example for kayaker's fear for their safety.Pleeease.
Also, the kayakers were renting a cottage in Fish Cove and were actually in Meredith bay by Spindle Point! All kinds of AIS in those kayaks that night. I meane if you're in Fish Cove kayaking naked, stay close, maybe venture into Tommies Cove, but all the way past Spindle Point! Yea, AIS.

I will agree this was an accident. The cause of which was the 2 kayakers KUI.
EricP is offline  
Old 04-26-2008, 06:06 AM   #268
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 930
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Cool Mythbusters For The Defense...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
"...Have we seen the offical accident report...?"
Because of the $2000 threshold for a NHMP report—and no injury—why would this require a report to the NHMP? Failing that—and that the CG has no jurisdiction on Winnipesaukee—will it even appear in Coast Guard statistics?



Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter View Post
Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.
Interstate analogies again....

How are the salmon fishermen, fishermen at anchor, kayaks, tubers, floating debris, anchored swimmers, anchored picnickers, and the occasional errant swim float to be accounted for in any Interstate example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter View Post
"...yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be..."
I previously noted here that a week before July 4th weekend, I saw a canoe, with a kayak in tow—transporting a solitary toddler—in open water.

Not exactly a jaywalker strolling out between parked SUVs, was she?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
"...And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking..."
It's not right to "project" a view of a non-participant into this incident. We don't know that to be FACT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee View Post
"...Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"
...and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater View Post
The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!! So please don't go there!
...and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
"...The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that..."
What is being taken for FACT...has only appeared at this forum.

The news article states, "...the kayak had no lights...".

A kayak does not need "lights". A single 360° hand-held light is sufficient. Did the reporter expect to find the "missing lights" in an overturned and abandoned kayak with several feet of its bow missing?

SIKSUKR's account (DUI, naked, no lights) was 3rd-hand; plus, we don't have any corroborating evidence from the press. The "NH Bass Foundation Nation" account (if there was one) could be parroting what appears anywhere on the Internet!

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
"...What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement...they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark...."
Unless there is some public document floating around, we don't "clearly know" any of that. Do we "clearly know" of a single citation being issued?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
"...Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights..."
At some point after this after-dark encounter, there were one or two swimmers in the water. A swimmer anywhere on the lake after dark—and needing rescue—cannot be expected to have lights.

If "kayaks can't be seen", I will agree with Mee&Mac and Evenstar that a strobe should be allowed for after-dark kayaking.

(Even one that does not meet the on-ON criterion. And yes, we should protect the fool at our own "expense").

(Some PFDs have strobe lights.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
"...clearly they were naked..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee View Post
"...if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater View Post
"...the Nude Kayaker had bailed out
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...he was nude..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
"...drunk and nude...not get caught nude..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
"...in Fish Cove kayaking naked..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
"...drinking and nude...?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
"...Maybe nekkid kayaking should be allowed..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29
"...is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...he didn't want to be seen naked...?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdawgfan
"...naked like the other bonehead kayaker...?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAINLANDER
"...and drunk naked kyackers..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrothead
"...naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD
"...these naked midnight [kayakers]..."
Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

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

...and you won't stink...

Last edited by ApS; 04-28-2008 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Edited to add last comment
ApS is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:11 AM   #269
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default Missing Kayaker

In the spirit of APS type posts,I offer this one from the WMUR website.


Searchers Look For Missing Kayaker

POSTED: 7:56 am EDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:17 am EDT May 2, 2008


ORFORD, N.H. -- Authorities are searching for a Vermont man after his empty kayak was found floating in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus said 58-year-old Robert Swantak of Bradford, Vt., went out for an afternoon of kayaking and fiddlehead fern picking Thursday.

He started in the Waits River in Bradford, which joins the Connecticut River that separates Vermont and New Hampshire.

Swantak's family called police when he failed to return home.

His overturned kayak was found a few miles down river in Orford, N.H., but there was no sign of Swantak.

Authorities from both states searched until after midnight and will begin searching again Friday morning.

Bogardus said officials remain optimistic that Swantak made it to shore, but he notes that the river is at high flood level with very swift currents and cold water temperatures.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:27 AM   #270
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 Acres per Second View Post
Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

The clothes-optional visitors were operating a craft in an unsafe manner. They created the problem, not the boater. Had they been operating within the law, this incident would not have happened. Period.

Oh and regarding the alcohol-induced excess, there is already a BUI law. Enforce it.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:31 AM   #271
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

Boy, who pulled out their Thesaurus the other day?? Quite impressed...

This "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd does not condone naked kayaking while drunk and stupid in the dark without any navigation lights, and we do not condone alcohol related stupidity behind the wheel of a boat. We push for better education, enforcement of current laws and promoting a safe lake. We do not promote a fear based campaign full of BS and empty of facts like our opposition.

There is no rampant issue with boats traveling 3 times the proposed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, I am not sure what Winnipesaukee you live on. There is a handful at most that are capable of speeds over 100mph, nonetheless 135mph.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 02:17 PM   #272
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default More statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.

The relative safety of the type of watercraft seems a bit off the topic of the risk to others by boats exceeding 45 MPH. Specifically, your point has been the risk to kayakers by such high speed boats. In Boating Statistics 2006, on page 27, is a chart entitled TYPES OF ACCIDENTS BY TYPE OF VESSEL. There are 3 types of accident that seem pertinent to the discussion, Collisions with other vessels, Struck by boat, and Struck by motor. For 2006 only 2 kayaks and 2 canoes had been involved in collision accidents. This is out of a total of 6753 accidents reported in the U.S. We don't know anything further about the actual speed of the collisions that occurred.

I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.
jeffk is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 02:41 PM   #273
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 jeffk View Post
Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.
Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 03:12 PM   #274
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.
I didn't start this argument. Woodsy made false accusations about the safety of kayaks, that I refuted with some actual facts.

If you're going to lump all paddle boats together, you also need to lump all power boats together. Then do the math, and you'll see that I'm still correct.
Quote:
I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.
I'm not a worrier. But I am a realist. And close calls from high-speed boats have put me in danger.

Boats on Winni that were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violate my 150 foot zone by a considate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me. And this has occurred more than once.

If lightening was striking that close, I wouldn't just sit there, waiting for the next strike . . . regardless of the statistics!

Note: I do know what 45mph looks like on the water. And I'm really good at extimating distance. If a boat is only 3 to 4 kayak lengths away from me, it is way closer than 150 feet.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 03:24 PM   #275
parrothead
Senior Member
 
parrothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Come on now

APS Said "Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit. "

How frequently does this happen APS that there are paddlers out at night?? I am going to leave the clothing optional part out because that is just and amusing aside. Why is it ok for a small boat to be out at night without lights?
Why are they not subject to same rules as the rest of us? Where in all of this discussion has anyone said outright that operating any motorized vehicle is ok while intoxicated. Apparently I am one of these Live-Free-or-Die" crowd and I don't believe that. I do think that as a responsible person if I decided to paddle at night I would make myself as conspicuous as possible. Reflective tape on my PFD, a 360 degree light, a flash light so if these other things didn't work I could flash it a passing boat. Maybe even an air horn to blast at the boat to let my presence known. I would not decide that it was ok to abandon my vessel and leave it adrift in the path of an oncoming vessel. Where are you coming from with this?
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane
parrothead is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:11 PM   #276
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?
let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?

i'm not afraid of speeding boats because a) there aren't a lot of them and b) i've never had an issue with a speeding boat and i've got over 1,000 boating hours on this lake. If you have a fear of being hit by lightning or being run over by a speeding boat, stay inside when it rains and don't venture out on the lake when you see that boat going by your house at 130 mph (and please call me, i've yet to see that).

i don't think many boaters are afraid of the lake. i wonder what a survery would produce if you asked the question to boaters on lake winnipesaukee: are you afraid of boating on the lake? i think you'd find an over-whelming majority say they feel safe on the lake (in my opinion).
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:16 PM   #277
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 B R View Post
let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?
I would like to propose that a speed limit for lightning be enacted. I think a safe speed would be 45 miles per hour. This would serve multiple benefits:

First of all, most members of the population are quite frightened by lightning and the high speed that it moves at (up to 93,000 miles per second). It can be especially scary if the lightning strikes within 150 feet of a person.

Second, it would reduce noise pollution. The thunder produced by lightning is mainly due to high speed of the electricity traveling through the air. Reduced to 45 miles per hour it would be a quiet buzzing sound.

Third, it could benefit the loon population. They are quite sensitive to sound and motion, so they could get out of the area before being struck as the lightning approached at a reasonable and prudent speed.

Fourth, children's camps could operate on the water with less fear. Think about it!

chmeeee is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:47 PM   #278
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

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group?
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:33 PM   #279
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group?
that's easy, sunshine; it the only thing that isn't "feared" on the lake (sarcasm font applied - i don't want people thinking i'm afraid of a 46 mph boat - geeesh).
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 08:01 AM   #280
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group?
Obvious? Your posts are hardly coherent, much less obvious.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 08:48 AM   #281
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,765
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
that's easy, sunshine; it the only thing that isn't "feared" on the lake (sarcasm font applied - i don't want people thinking i'm afraid of a 46 mph boat - geeesh).
I'm scared of sunlight. I wear sunblock. People who tan nicely make me look more pasty than I am. There obviously needs to be a law against tanning so that my feelings are not hurt.
Dave R is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 08:53 AM   #282
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,765
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group?

Wouldn't it be every item you excluded? I'll take a stab or two though, King Tut? A baby's arm holding an apple?
Dave R is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 12:16 PM   #283
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 Dave R View Post
Wouldn't it be every item you excluded? I'll take a stab or two though, King Tut? A baby's arm holding an apple?
Kickstand?
chipj29 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 05:24 PM   #284
alsadad
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Thanks: 6
Thanked 40 Times in 9 Posts
Default For what it's worth

Now that I've digested the different views in HB 847, I thought I'd offer my opinion -- not that I think anyone will change their mind. I've been boating since I was a child. We've always had sailboats, canoes and powerboats on lakes, big and small. I've been boating here since we bought a home on the lake in 1991. I have to say that in all those years I have never had a close or frightening or even particularly annoying encounter with a so-called GFBL or "ocean racer" or anyone traveling 60, 70, 90 mph or more. I've seen them, I've even been in them on occasion, but I've never been in a position where I felt threatened by one.

Having said that, I don't have any visceral or passionate objection to speed limits, either. A speed limit will not directly affect my boating, for good or for bad. It is seldom enjoyable traveling more than 35-40 mph in my 23 footer and most of my boating is at even slower speeds.

If I had to rank the factors that affect my enjoyment of the lake, I'm not certain that 60 mph boats, or whatever your definition of speeding is, even make the list. Let's face it, the most important factor affecting our ability to enjoy the lake is the weather, at least in some years. If I thought that the NH Legislature could command ideal boating weather all season, I'd be in Concord lobbying right now, but I doubt even they think that they have that much power. And of course there would be multiple threads on this forum arguing about what "ideal weather" is -- warm, hot, windy, calm, etc.

Other than the weather, the two most important factors, in my experience, are the volume of boats and rude, obnoxious, clueless boaters. The volume of boats is a difficult issue for me to address. After all, there were fewer boats on the lake before I arrived, and one more after I did. Who am I to deny someone else the pleasure I have enjoyed just because I got here first?

But we can do something about the rude, obnoxious and clueless boaters. The most frightening experience I have ever had while boating occurred on this lake two years ago. My kids were tubing in the area among Long Island, Little Bear and Dow. Another family in a boat much like mine was towing a child on a tube and there was more than enough room for us to stay out of each other's way, which we did for 30 minutes or so. Then my son fell off of the tube and as I circled around to go back for him I suddenly saw the other boat headed directly for him, on a course approximately 90 degrees from mine. More frightening was the fact that it was obvious that the "driver" (he was hardly a captain at that point) had one hand on the wheel but was facing the stern watching his tuber. Of course that's what spotters are for. Fortunately he was still several hundred feet away and I accelerated and sounded my horn while slightly changing my course to put my boat between him and my son (some might argue with my response, but in the split second I had to decide it's what I came up with). He came within 50 feet before seeing us, veered away and gave me the one-finger salute. He was not traveling more than 15 or 20 mph.

I try to be tolerant, but that's the guy I want off of the lake! Well, okay, we can try to educate him first (with a 2x4?), but people like him are far more frightening to me, and far more numerous in my experience, than the boaters who will leave because of a 45 mph speed limit.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if the speed limit bill passes. I won't even yell loudly or race through the Bear Island NWZ in protest. But I don't expect to feel any safer, either – I don’t feel unsafe now. In my opinion, any serious and sincere effort to improve safety on the lake begins with education and enforcement. The thing I fear more than any speeding boater is that the outcome of this campaign will be followed by…. nothing… while the "winners" rest on their laurels and the "losers" sulk.
alsadad is offline  
Old 05-10-2008, 01:15 AM   #285
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks
However, that doesn't jive with New Hampshire figures.

In 2006, the last year that NH Marine Patrol statistics are available to my knowledge;
33% of the BOATING FATALTIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INVOVLED KAYAKS!
The other fatalties were drownings, not boating accidents.

Of the 84 boating accidents in the entire state, .04% involved boats going more than 45mph, and of those THREE only ONE was on Winnipesuakee!

Don't you hate numbers?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 05-10-2008, 10:51 PM   #286
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
However, that doesn't jive with New Hampshire figures.
Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 06:29 AM   #287
Mashugana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question What if we adopted Evenstar policy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.
Expanding your policy not to discuss something you can't or haven't viewed for yourself (not just data but claimed boat violators too) would eliminate most of the current debate. How many of those opposed to adding more speed laws have seen boats going so fast that they can not see you until panic time? There is no study or report to show any lapse of proper lookout or safe boating and attribute it to speed over 45 mph?
Mashugana is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 07:42 AM   #288
boat_guy64
Senior Member
 
boat_guy64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Windham and Meredith
Posts: 195
Blog Entries: 5
Thanks: 33
Thanked 75 Times in 31 Posts
Default well said Alsadad

Alsadad,

I couldn't agree more. A speed limit has no affect on me at all. My boat will barely go that fast and I rarely do. I also have not been affected by those fast scary boats.

I do worry that our understaffed, underfunded, underequipped Marine Patrol will be burdened with yet another job that will make them less responsive in emergency situations. All of their boats are not fully equipped with GPS and other equipment now and forcing them to have RADAR on board will make it even harder for them to afford the other essentials.
boat_guy64 is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 09:05 AM   #289
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 alsadad View Post
Now that I've digested the different views in HB 847, I thought I'd offer my opinion -- not that I think anyone will change their mind. I've been boating since I was a child. We've always had sailboats, canoes and powerboats on lakes, big and small. I've been boating here since we bought a home on the lake in 1991. I have to say that in all those years I have never had a close or frightening or even particularly annoying encounter with a so-called GFBL or "ocean racer" or anyone traveling 60, 70, 90 mph or more. I've seen them, I've even been in them on occasion, but I've never been in a position where I felt threatened by one.

Having said that, I don't have any visceral or passionate objection to speed limits, either. A speed limit will not directly affect my boating, for good or for bad. It is seldom enjoyable traveling more than 35-40 mph in my 23 footer and most of my boating is at even slower speeds.

If I had to rank the factors that affect my enjoyment of the lake, I'm not certain that 60 mph boats, or whatever your definition of speeding is, even make the list. Let's face it, the most important factor affecting our ability to enjoy the lake is the weather, at least in some years. If I thought that the NH Legislature could command ideal boating weather all season, I'd be in Concord lobbying right now, but I doubt even they think that they have that much power. And of course there would be multiple threads on this forum arguing about what "ideal weather" is -- warm, hot, windy, calm, etc.

Other than the weather, the two most important factors, in my experience, are the volume of boats and rude, obnoxious, clueless boaters. The volume of boats is a difficult issue for me to address. After all, there were fewer boats on the lake before I arrived, and one more after I did. Who am I to deny someone else the pleasure I have enjoyed just because I got here first?

But we can do something about the rude, obnoxious and clueless boaters. The most frightening experience I have ever had while boating occurred on this lake two years ago. My kids were tubing in the area among Long Island, Little Bear and Dow. Another family in a boat much like mine was towing a child on a tube and there was more than enough room for us to stay out of each other's way, which we did for 30 minutes or so. Then my son fell off of the tube and as I circled around to go back for him I suddenly saw the other boat headed directly for him, on a course approximately 90 degrees from mine. More frightening was the fact that it was obvious that the "driver" (he was hardly a captain at that point) had one hand on the wheel but was facing the stern watching his tuber. Of course that's what spotters are for. Fortunately he was still several hundred feet away and I accelerated and sounded my horn while slightly changing my course to put my boat between him and my son (some might argue with my response, but in the split second I had to decide it's what I came up with). He came within 50 feet before seeing us, veered away and gave me the one-finger salute. He was not traveling more than 15 or 20 mph.

I try to be tolerant, but that's the guy I want off of the lake! Well, okay, we can try to educate him first (with a 2x4?), but people like him are far more frightening to me, and far more numerous in my experience, than the boaters who will leave because of a 45 mph speed limit.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if the speed limit bill passes. I won't even yell loudly or race through the Bear Island NWZ in protest. But I don't expect to feel any safer, either – I don’t feel unsafe now. In my opinion, any serious and sincere effort to improve safety on the lake begins with education and enforcement. The thing I fear more than any speeding boater is that the outcome of this campaign will be followed by…. nothing… while the "winners" rest on their laurels and the "losers" sulk.

Pretty much my experience as well. We were tubing over here last summer, parallel with the shoreline. The very same type of moron did much the same thing, forgetting what he was doing, where his course was, where we were. Same one finger salute.

Most of the real idiots on the lake here are going slower, usually with tubers. There are the real idiots that take their poor car driving experience out on the lake. They never learn what's the proper way to boat, no common sense or courtesy involved whatsoever. The laws all apply to these infractions Now. But alas, they are rarely enforced due to lots of reasons.

Those seeking more rules and regulations rarely mention enforcement. The speed limit crowd doesn't ant to discuss anything not favorable for their agenda, nor do they want to discuss the actual problems on the lakes.

You'll still have 150' violations, idiots in rentals, obnoxious drunks, and naked kayakers with no lights
VtSteve is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 12:37 PM   #290
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.
I am happy to provide a link;
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4283
The information was posted by Woodsy in February 2007 and as a matter of fact you were the third person to write a response.

Funny you don't remember the things that don't back your claims that every time you're on Winnipesaukee you experience a close call with speeding boats!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 01:01 PM   #291
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 boat_guy64 View Post
Alsadad,

I couldn't agree more. A speed limit has no affect on me at all. My boat will barely go that fast and I rarely do. I also have not been affected by those fast scary boats.

I do worry that our understaffed, underfunded, underequipped Marine Patrol will be burdened with yet another job that will make them less responsive in emergency situations. All of their boats are not fully equipped with GPS and other equipment now and forcing them to have RADAR on board will make it even harder for them to afford the other essentials.
Who is forcing the Marine Patrol to put RADAR on their boats? The MP have been enforcing speed limits on dozens of New Hampshire lakes for decades without RADAR! There are several ways to enforce a speed limit that do not use RADAR.

Plus they have at least two hand held units that were used for a recent survey. I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. If a problem develops they can send out an officer with a hand held to set up a speed trap during a few peek hours.

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:36 PM   #292
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 Bear Islander View Post
...

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?
So your asking for a law that will stop something that seldom happens from happening, and we won't have to enforce it because it seldom happens.

Why not stop trying to make your arguements sound logical, it's waste of time.

Just keep saying what you really mean and occasionally admit: You don't want fast boats on your lake and this law will send a message to them and drive them off. You don't want large boats on your lake and this law will provide a stepping stone to that end. Why pretend?
jrc is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:58 PM   #293
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 jrc View Post
So your asking for a law that will stop something that seldom happens from happening, and we won't have to enforce it because it seldom happens.

Why not stop trying to make your arguements sound logical, it's waste of time.

Just keep saying what you really mean and occasionally admit: You don't want fast boats on your lake and this law will send a message to them and drive them off. You don't want large boats on your lake and this law will provide a stepping stone to that end. Why pretend?
We have laws against lots of things that seldom happen. And it will happen less often when the law is passed. Plus there will be consequences for the few violators. That is why we enact laws!

Who is pretending? I have never "admitted" I want high horsepower boats off the lake. I state it openly and often. Do I have to say it in every post?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 03:09 PM   #294
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Who is forcing the Marine Patrol to put RADAR on their boats? The MP have been enforcing speed limits on dozens of New Hampshire lakes for decades without RADAR! There are several ways to enforce a speed limit that do not use RADAR.

Plus they have at least two hand held units that were used for a recent survey. I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. If a problem develops they can send out an officer with a hand held to set up a speed trap during a few peek hours.

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?
How many times have you driven down Pleasant Street over 25 MPH? I actually find it difficult to keep it under 30, I try to stay between 25-30 MPH and consider that obeying the law. Today I was followed up Pleasant Street by a cruiser and I was doing my normal 25-30 MPH thing. I wasn't pulled over. So I submit that law abiding citizens speed. I consider myself a law abiding citizen and I do speed. I drive 93 south every Monday morning from here to rt 128. average speed for me is 72 and people fly by me all the time. I've even had cops fly by me while I was traveling at 72. Point is we'll still have boats traveling over 45 and we'll still have idiots violating the 150' safe passage law. I am less concerned about the boats going over 45 MPH than I am about the idiots not paying attention. Your entire premise is that passing the speed limit will keep certain people away, I believe it won't. You also think the lake will be safer, I believe it won't. I actually think if the law passes absolutely nothing will change. The problems we face are not speed related they are safety related. Paying attention, 150' safe passage, BUI, driving fast through NWZs, etc.. A speed limit addresses none of those problems.
EricP is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 03:58 PM   #295
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default Self enforcing speed limits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post

... I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. ...
The people I see pulled over regularly on I93 must be getting parking tickets.
jeffk is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 04:41 PM   #296
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
I actually think if the law passes absolutely nothing will change.
I can't agree with that. I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 05:35 PM   #297
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 Bear Islander View Post
We have laws against lots of things that seldom happen. And it will happen less often when the law is passed. Plus there will be consequences for the few violators. That is why we enact laws!
...
How can there be consequences if there is no enforcement? You say there is no need for enforcement yet you say there will be consequences, this is logically flawed. Without enforcement, the only consequence is a guilty conscience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
...
Who is pretending? I have never "admitted" I want high horsepower boats off the lake. I state it openly and often. Do I have to say it in every post?
Sometimes you openly say you just want high horsepower boats off the lake, sometimes you pretend there is a logical reason to have a speed limit. All I'm saying is stop the pretense.

Just say that you want the high horsepower boats off the lake, because that's what you want. And the speed limit law is just a handy tool.
jrc is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 06:22 PM   #298
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Cars go a little over the limit, boats will go a little over the limit. So What? Who cares? How often do cars go 70 mph on Pleasant St. or 140 mph on route 93?

Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?
Islander is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 07:10 PM   #299
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
Cars go a little over the limit, boats will go a little over the limit. So What? Who cares? How often do cars go 70 mph on Pleasant St. or 140 mph on route 93?

Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?
Again, this happens so infrequently it's not an issue. Let's compare how many times idiots violate the 150' safe passage law compared to how many boats go over 50. I have no hard facts for that but my personal observations from years of riding around on my SeaDoos leads me to conclude that the violators of the 150' safe passage law far outnumber boats going over 50 recklessly, and they (the 150' violators) are the ones making people feal unsafe. This is unscientific data, wholly my opinion and observations but I would wager a vast majority of people using this forum would agree with me.

Last edited by EricP; 05-11-2008 at 07:13 PM. Reason: Spelling
EricP is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:33 PM   #300
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
I can't agree with that. I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.
I think you are right. I know that Bear Island is the shortest distance between any two points on Winni. Keep it slow and watch out for kayakers. If I owned Y Landing, I know I'd be offering the cheapest gas on the lake this summer. There is a captive audience just looking for a reason to say hello to everyone on Bear Island this summer.
Seaplane Pilot 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 08:10 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.42408 seconds