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 06-02-2008, 05:07 PM   #1
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default Payback Time

Today's Laconia Daily Sun reports that Republican Laconia City Councilor Greg Knytych will challenge Democrat State Senator Kathleen Sgambati for the district 4 Senate seat. Senator Sgambati voted in favor of the Speed Limit bill, so now those of us who were against the speed limit can have our say, and vote against her - hopefully sending her packing. I, for one, will be sending a generous donation to her opponent!

God Bless America!

www.laconiadailysun.com
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 06-02-2008, 06:27 PM   #2
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default

I have read the article and his platform, controling spending at the state level, really interests me. However, I did not see a position on speed limits.

I will likely support him and I will definately contribute to the campaign and do some work for his campaign if he is solidly against speed limits.

R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 06-03-2008, 09:00 AM   #3
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,448
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

It is certainly his right to run for state senator against Senator Kathleen Sgambati. She has lots to contribute in the areas of health insurance, medical care and nursing home care, as well as supporting the motorboat speed limits.

Suggest you google Senator Kathy Sgambati. the Senator who represents Alton, Gilford, Laconia, Tilton, Belmont, and maybe Gilmanton, and Gilmanton Ironworks.

In the senate's vote of 14-10 to pass the 45/25 boat speed limit, there were two Republicans who voted yes, and two Democrats who voted no so it was not all that partisan.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 06-03-2008, 09:01 PM   #4
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Another supporter of HB847, Senator Joe Foster of Nashua, has decided NOT to run for re-election!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 06:07 AM   #5
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default Senator Kenney

Joe Kenney wants to be Governor yet was one of the sponsors of the speed limit bill. Not only did he vote for it, but his office never responded to a written letter making the case against it. No support for Joe from me.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 06-04-2008, 11:19 AM   #6
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,433
Thanks: 143
Thanked 991 Times in 370 Posts
Default

That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 12:53 PM   #7
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 SAMIAM View Post
That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.
The Speed Limit Bill was sponsored by Jim Pilliod, R-Belmont.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 07:26 PM   #8
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,433
Thanks: 143
Thanked 991 Times in 370 Posts
Default

Well,duhhh....lets get rid of Jim.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:07 PM   #9
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 have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:27 PM   #10
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Guess Jimmy was an easy sell with the scare tactics.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 09:06 PM   #11
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right:
Quote:
If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves.
If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 09:42 PM   #12
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
That bill was shoved down our throats by the same crowd that wants to tax you for an excessive carbon footprint......in other words,the moonbats. Hopefully we can send them a message at the polls.
Seems to me that a few of the legislators who voted against HB 162 were sent a message at the polls...and they lost their jobs.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 08:07 AM   #13
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default An issue, but not the only one

Bear Islander and Evenstar have a point. One issue should not make or break a candidate. Broadbase taxes, school funding, healthcare and funding the state retirement system are more important issues for the Lakes Region than a speed limit. However, it is very telling when elected officials pass a bill that so many were against and adds new restrictions to a targeted group. The issue was lake safety, and they did nothing to improve it. What other nanny laws will they pass because some group funds a campaign of hype?

So, I take back my claim that Joe Kenney will not receive my support if he runs for Governor. He's my local senator, and gets points for that, but so far he flunked the part where he gets to weigh the issues and make an appropriate decision. He was a co-sponsor of the bill, so he clearly doesn't understand boating, the lake, or safety issues. Let's see what he has to say about taxes.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 08:09 AM   #14
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 Evenstar View Post
Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.
But if they vote what they think is right, no matter what their constituents think, then they are not doing their job.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 08:39 AM   #15
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
You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.
I think those that voted for this law are fiscally irresponsible to the entire state of NH. This was no time to enact laws that cost money (and I know you don't think it does; I disagree).

When HB162 was defeated, Winnfabs went after the Senators who voted against it and they were voted out of office. Why is this any different?
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 09:11 AM   #16
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,433
Thanks: 143
Thanked 991 Times in 370 Posts
Default

I will admit that I have a selfish interest in this issue and that is the economy of the lakes region.I do not own a "go fast" boat but,being in business,I have seen the economic effect that these folks have in our shops,stores and restaurants.They are generally the most affluent of out summer visitors....we do not have much industry or manufacturing in this area.We are mostly dependant on our vacation and service business'.and the guy with the 150k boat likes to spend money.
It might seem petty to some that I would vote for or against someone based on this issue alone,but tough times are ahead and it doesn't seem wise to make a big segment of our boaters to feel unwelcome.
I know from previous posts that Bear Islander would be happy to see nothing but kayak's and canoe's on the lake and that is a very warm and fuzzy picture....unless you need to make a living here.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 10:11 AM   #17
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I will admit that I have a selfish interest in this issue and that is the economy of the lakes region.I do not own a "go fast" boat but,being in business,I have seen the economic effect that these folks have in our shops,stores and restaurants.They are generally the most affluent of out summer visitors....we do not have much industry or manufacturing in this area.We are mostly dependant on our vacation and service business'.and the guy with the 150k boat likes to spend money.
It might seem petty to some that I would vote for or against someone based on this issue alone,but tough times are ahead and it doesn't seem wise to make a big segment of our boaters to feel unwelcome.
I know from previous posts that Bear Islander would be happy to see nothing but kayak's and canoe's on the lake and that is a very warm and fuzzy picture....unless you need to make a living here.
Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business. One could argue that with $4.50/gal gas that there will be a shift by boaters to smaller boats. Not all GFBL boaters are rolling in money (and judging by the # of these used boats for sale, I suspect many are hurting). Similarly, not all high rollers choose to drive a GFBL boat. There are many comfortable people who choose to spend their money in the lake's region on other pursuits. I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me).
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 10:17 AM   #18
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 Bear Islander View Post
You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty. You want to get ride of the people that didn't vote the way you wanted on one piece of legislation. I have been present when many bills have been debated and have been to many hearings when elected representatives have driven long hours and taken time away from the lives and families, to serve the state of New Hampshire.

I believe every member of the House and Senate voted their conscience on HB162 and HB847. When our side lost a close one two years ago I don't remember anybody calling Senators names. I disagreed with their vote but never questioned their integrity or the service they do the people.

If you dislike the job they are doing you should run for office and replace them yourselves. Then you can read where people call you names, or question you intelligence or integrity, because you have done what you think it right.
There was one post on this thread that contained a silly name, and just once.

I don't think that one post is worthy of your lengthy diatribe on integrity and service.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 10:51 AM   #19
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
But if they vote what they think is right, no matter what their constituents think, then they are not doing their job.
Not entirely true.

Representaives are supposed to vote the way the majority of their constituents would want them to. If they fail to do that, they should be voted out.

Senators are supposed to vote for what is best for the state, regardless of popularity or potential for personal gain. Senators are supposed to prevent popular, but bad legislation. If they fail to do that, they should be voted out.

I think it's great that so many represenatives and senators are willing to sacrifice their time, money and energy to serve our state, but the willingness to do so does not automatically mean they are good at it. A positive vote for HB847 may not mean much in the whole scheme of things, but realistic people can see it shows a general lack of common sense. Not voting for someone that lacks common sense is not petty, it's just smart, informed voting.

I only hope that those who opt not to vote for HB847 supporters, really know who they are voting for. It could get worse, common sense is not very common...
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 11:43 AM   #20
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business.
Common wisdom is that it is the captain boneheads, going well under 45, that make the lake seem unsafe, and the hyped up "education" campaign from Winnfabs did more gratuitous damage to the lake's reputation than anything else in the past 5 years.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 12:18 PM   #21
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 Evenstar View Post
I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.
Many people vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, some based on personal rights or gun issues solely, this isn't new stuff here.

WINNFABS thought it was important to show the voting records of those in State office. Someone even commented about them being instrumental in getting some out of office? Whatever. I note that WINNFABS didn't bother to update their site for the Senate vote, much less the Governor waiting for the bill itself. Perhaps they are off to other exciting things.

I might add the following to your comment about "He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious. ".

If these bills were the most contentious, and generated a lot of correspondence and calls, he should therefore deduce that they ARE important, at least to his constituents. Perhaps he should get out more often, and maybe find out why this issue IS important. The fact that people went out of their way to express their concerns should have been a hint. This is a mistake that our leaders in Washington make every day. Far too often, politicians think that legislation that involves people's rights are not important issues, so they treat these issues in a vacuum.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, this is an important issue to the people on this forum, and boaters everywhere. Far too often, bad idea spread like fungus. Safety issues in particular, are far too often addressed by people that know squat about the problems and issues themselves. They are easy targets for those that set up elaborate campaigns for whatever benefit. If these groups as a whole had their way, every boater would be wearing an expensive inflatable PFD, a helmet, knee pads, and have a governor on the engine set to golf cart speed.

Politically, it's pretty easy, generally speaking, to guess correctly which party does this more often than not. There are three main groups in these issues.

1) A group that thinks legislation is the only way to protect people from their own stupidity and other's stupidity. They rarely follow up on the results, the primary focus is on legislation, not results.

2) A group that thinks it's every man/woman for themself. Any restriction of rights is bad.

3) A group that thinks moderation and caution should be used, extreme care, when tampering with rights issues.

I form opinions by issue, not party affiliation. I tend to research all issues before forming an opinion, and look for common sense and pragmatism when doing so. I value the opinions of people directly impacted by issues, since they are on in the line of fire. I discount opinions and research offered up by fringe groups, trade groups, or special attack groups setup for lobbying of specific issues.

I have read all of the posts I could here and elsewhere on this subject, waded through reports and articles from around the country, and solicited opinions from fellow boaters I meet. This is how I formed my opinion on the speed limit issue, and led me to the unanimous conclusion that the primary causes of boating accidents are,

1) Drunks
2) Irresponsible, careless and negligent boaters.
3) Inexperienced, unknowledgable boaters that get themselves into trouble unwittingly
4) Accidents happen in any activity.

While boater education has picked up markedly the last decade, (Hat's off to Boat US and power squadrons, to name but two fine organizations), enforcement has either broken even or declined. Enforcement of existing laws, more and more attention to boater education and training, and safe boater's involvement in the process are the proper course to take to solve the problems.

We have drunks running boats up on islands, PWC's buzzing around like bugs, people drowning, hitting docks, and occasionally, hitting other craft. We also have a lack of funding for enforcing the boating laws already on the books for a variety of reasons. Budget crunches abound, energy costs are sky high, and HSA has a much higher priority than the relatively low number of boating accidents each year. No, yelling for help with bogus stats does not help the issue.

In the meantime, the only thing that will help is concerned boaters have to chip in. Call in their hull numbers for the crazies out there (there aren't that many really, an easy thing to do). There are a couple of boaters here in prison for accidents the last dozen or so years. But you have to catch them first.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 12:30 PM   #22
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 Evenstar View Post
I really don't understand voting against a senator or a representative just because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to on one little bill. That seems like an extremely narrow focus to have. In the big scheme of things, a lake speed limit (while it is very important to many of us on this forum) is a very minor issue.

I had to be in Concord on Monday for a doctor appointment, so I stopped in at the State House to visit some of the people that I had worked with last year. The senator who I worked for as an intern gave me a big hug and invited me to lunch. He told me that the speedlimit bill and a bill protecting animals that race (greyhounds and horses) generated the most email for him (I used to handle much of his email). He said that those bills were not even major issues, compared with many other bills, yet those were among the most contentious.

When HB165 was defeated, Senator John Gallus was one of the Republican Senators who defeated it - yet I never held that against him in any way and I still voted for him in the following election. And then I testified in opposition to one of his bills - and we laughed about it later when he blamed me for defeating his bill. This is not supposed to be personal. You stand up for your beliefs - and the other side presents their arguments - then our legislators decide. And then you accept their decision and get on with your life (at least until until the next important issue comes up). That's how democracy works.

I've worked for a NH Senator (actually I worked for a couple of them), so I know how hard they work and how much time many of them devote to doing what is an extremely difficult and often very frustrating job.

Bear Islander is right: If your Senator and Representatives are honest and are trying to do what is right for the people of NH, you should be very thankful for their service - even when you disagree with the way they voted on one little bill.
I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area. An elected representative has so many issues to deal with day in and day out. One should look at an overall pattern of voting to decide whether or not they accurately represent your views and concerns. One issue does not make or break a candidate.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 05:13 PM   #23
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 hazelnut View Post
I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area. An elected representative has so many issues to deal with day in and day out. One should look at an overall pattern of voting to decide whether or not they accurately represent your views and concerns. One issue does not make or break a candidate.
This is all well and good. One issue does not make or break a candidate. Ok, I can agree with that.

But how can you look at the Senators and not see the vote for what is was? This wasn't just one vote, this was voting for something that sounds good while ignoring the fact that speed is not a problem on the lake. This was a vote that wasn't based on facts. How can you re-elect anyone who doesn't vote on the facts but with pure emotion? This law was passed without any facts to substantiate the bill. Sorry, no one's convinced me otherwise. And you probably can't convince me. I've been on the lake for 10 years and certainly know what I see. And I don't see speed as a problem for the lake.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 06:26 PM   #24
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 B R View Post

... ignoring the fact that speed is not a problem on the lake...

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.

You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:15 PM   #25
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B R

... ignoring the fact that speed is not a problem on the lake...
Originally posted by Bear Islander
That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.
You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.
AHH, but it is a fact!

Speed is not now and has not been for years a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee, at least not until WinnFabs and its supporters decided to make it so.

Looking at statistics (facts) gathered over the years it is hard to imagine anyone who, reviewing the statistics objectively, would agree with WinnFabs.

The House is the body that represents you and me, the folks who live next door and take our opinions and bring them to Concord. That's why the NH House is so large.

The Senate is supposed to be the body that does not react to the winds of public opinion, but instead reflect and vote on what is in the overall interest of the state. In this case a majority of Senators disregarded the fact that speed is not now and has not ever been an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee and instead acted like members of the House. Because of their I can now go 800MPH on Waukewaun, but only 45 on Winni! LOL

Do I think this was a Republican V Democrat issue? No way. It was introduced by a Republican and had a majority of support from Democrats, WHY? Politics.
At some point the Democrats that supported the Republican initiative will come back and call in their markers. That is how it works.

Will Governor Lynch sign this bill? Again, politics, I don't know what he wants that's on the fence that this bill could be used for or against, so who knows?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 08:21 PM   #26
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Thumbs down No personal attacks necessary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You have a constitutional right to vote for or against anybody you want, for any reason you want.

And I have a right to the opinion you are incredibly petty.
You know BI, that sound an awful lot like a personal attack on me. That was not necessary, and I think your post should be edited or removed. I am represented by a Senator that voted for something that I feel strongly against. I did not attack her personally (or you for that matter), but I simply brought forth that the electoral process allows an individual the freedom to vote against someone that does not follow one's personal positions on the issues. I fully intend to vote against Senator Sgambati (who, by the way, never had the professional courtesy to return e-mails or phone calls) and vote in a candidate that has more conservative views. You also have no idea what I do or do not do in the field of public service. I may be a politician for all you know.

Last edited by Seaplane Pilot; 06-06-2008 at 09:25 AM.
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 06-05-2008, 08:45 PM   #27
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
In this case a majority of Senators disregarded the fact that speed is not now and has not ever been an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee
What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

BTW, if Seaplane Pilot considers being called "petty" a personal attack that should be edited or removed, well then this thread should switch to discussing only things we can all agree on, like "boy those black flies are annoying".
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 12:29 AM   #28
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

Pffffft, I will be sending out many checks if I can determine that a pro speed limit legislator will be replaced by an anti-speed limit legislator. Anyone who would vote on a law like this that is justified by scare tactics and hyperbole needs to go quickly. These are the same people who will be raising your taxes. Before you know it they'll be doing moonbat things like this: New Hampshire Legislature to Vote on Impeaching Bush and Cheney -- House bill 24.
ITD is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 07:09 AM   #29
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.
A boat going by at 70 MPH, 150' away is no different than a boat going by at 70 MPH, 1.5 miles away, it's just going by.

We had your second scenario happen constantly on the CT River in MA (where the speed limit has been 45 for years) and it was nothing but entertaining. Not one family in our large group of families was at all bothered by it, even though it was clear they boats were completely ingoring the speed limit. Replace those boats with one going by at 30 MPH, 15' away (which could very well be legal in MA) and we'd be bothered.
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:25 AM   #30
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue

Try this argument with a family sitting on thier porch on Rattlesnake Island and has a boat go by them at 70MPH just 200' away. Try this argument with a family with kids swimming while in a rafting area and a boat legally goes by at 70MPH 200' away. Speed is not the issue!

I fish quite often on Winnie, and cannot remember at any time a boat going that fast, that close to me, However I have had a water skier FALL (wipeout) within 30 feet from where I was fishing on the deck of my boat, when I told the operator of the boat there is a 150" rule, they said "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO FISH ", once again SPEED is not the issue, IGNORANCE is !!! If you not a believer of this, call MARINE PATROL, they came down and spoke with them !!!
topwater is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:27 AM   #31
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 Turtle Boy View Post
What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. Try that argument with a family that is fishing and has a boat legally go by them at 70 MP just 150' away. Try that argument with a family with kids swimming in Winter Harbor and has a boat legally go by at 70 MPH only 150' away. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.
If a boat is going 70 mph at 150' away, what exactly is the issue? If you are swimming with your family and a boat goes by at 45 mph at 150' away, what is the difference? You cannot tell me that you can tell the difference between 70 mph and 45 mph at 150' away, while you are swimming in the water. And even if you could, what is the risk? At both speeds, the boat is still 150' away!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:43 AM   #32
Skipper of the Sea Que
Deceased Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Question Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters

Turtle Boy references - The Economic Impact of Potential Decline in New Hampshire Water Quality:
The Link Between Visitor Perceptions, Usage and Spending Phase IV Report, May 2007
Steering Committee of the Lakes, Rivers, Streams & Ponds Partnership -(that's a mouthful) but he did not include a link to this report.

Economic-Study-Phase-IV-Brochure - pdf

One conclusion of the "report": Key Regional Findings - Perceived water quality decline could mean varying economic losses for state’s regions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
What are you saying? Of course speed is an issue. {snip}. Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy
I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me)
Or check it out for your own edification.

From the Phase IV study: Purpose
The primary goal of this study was to answer the question:
“How would the state economy be affected if residents and visitors who fish, boat and swim perceive any negative changes to the water quality in the areas where they recreate?”

The secondary study goals were to create useful information for policy makers, and promote “big picture” thinking that overcomes the perception that growth and healthy public waters are mutually exclusive.

----
Another key conclusion of the report:
Key Statewide Findings
Current perception of water quality is very good.
The survey looked at the following criteria in this State Wide lakes study:

[note:The first percentage # = Satisfaction: % of respondents Satisfied or Very Satisfied.
The 2nd % = Rating: percentage of respondents giving highest rating.]

Overall quality 85% 74%
Clarity & purity 79% 65%
Crowding 60% 91%
Views & scenery 94% 91%
Water level or flow 90% 66%[/b]

Seems like a vast majority were currently satisfied with the lakes. Not that I am validating the study, just my observation.

Interested readers should check out this short report. It doesn't mention SPEED or economic windfall but Turtle Boy must believe the report supports his theory. I leave it to you to make your own informed decision.

Safe boating to all
__________________



Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works.
Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:23 AM   #33
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
That is not a fact, it is your opinion. The legislators heard a great deal of statistics, testimony and argument to the contrary.

You may be unconvinced. You can disagree with this evidence, or discount its relevance. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't exist.
What statistics? I was at the hearing on President's day with my two sons and we didn't hear a single statistic, just a lot a "fear of the lake" stories. Can you please provide me with any statistics that show that speed is a problem on the lake? The marine patrol report is full of statistics; but you don't seem to like those.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:23 AM   #34
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
BTW, if Seaplane Pilot considers being called "petty" a personal attack that should be edited or removed, well then this thread should switch to discussing only things we can all agree on, like "boy those black flies are annoying".
Turtle Boy, some of us are quite sensitive you know

My feelings were hurt
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:32 AM   #35
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Speed is the issue. And if that 1% of boaters(per this forum) leaves the lake or slows down, it could be an economic windfall, according to my post this AM referring to the NH Lakes ,Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership report.

I read the report. It says nothing of an economic windfall. It only predicts economic losses if people stop visiting the state due to perceived water clarity issues. One would have to be insane to conclude, from reading that report, that a drop in boater visits could ever lead to an economic windfall. It says precisely the opposite.
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:34 AM   #36
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

I have to disagree with you SP.I think your quite the politician!And a very sensitive one at that.Someone needs to go back in their shell.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 11:47 AM   #37
Commodore
Member
 
Commodore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Exclamation Speed is not just for Go Fast Be Loud boats

Speed (over the proposed speed limit) is not restricted to big money GFBLs. Many boats are capable of going faster than 45 mph. The summary of that study concludes that currently an overwhelming majority of polled users are satisfied or VERY satisfied with conditions at NH lakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Maybe so, but....there are some business owners supporting speed limits who feel that this minority(1% per some of this forum's contributors) has indeed driven away business. One could argue that with $4.50/gal gas that there will be a shift by boaters to smaller boats. Not all GFBL boaters are rolling in money (and judging by the # of these used boats for sale, I suspect many are hurting). Similarly, not all high rollers choose to drive a GFBL boat. There are many comfortable people who choose to spend their money in the lake's region on other pursuits. I suspect that lost revenue from GFBL boats will be more than offset by other boaters and vacationers. They might not be spending it at the gas dock or the dockside restaurant, but there are many other lake's region vendors who will benefit. (check out the Phase IV Report on the Economic Value of NH's Surface Waters- the Link Between Visitor Perception, Usage, and Spending prepared by the NH Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership-2007 if you don't believe me).
The summary of that report does not mention GFBL boaters as a current problem or a perceived problem. Even if it was part of the report the high ratings and satisfaction levels indicate that there IS NO PROBLEM let alone one that needs to be addressed by a new speed limit law.

Any perception that the qualities of the lake are declining comes from those who claim that GFBLs are chasing people from the scary wild west boating on our lakes. The perception comes from speed limit advocates.
__________________
The Commodore
Commodore is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 01:43 PM   #38
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 B R View Post
What statistics? I was at the hearing on President's day with my two sons and we didn't hear a single statistic, just a lot a "fear of the lake" stories. Can you please provide me with any statistics that show that speed is a problem on the lake? The marine patrol report is full of statistics; but you don't seem to like those.
No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 02:28 PM   #39
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
A boat going by at 70 MPH, 150' away is no different than a boat going by at 70 MPH, 1.5 miles away, it's just going by.

.
Really? You're going to have a tough time getting many people to follow that logic.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 03:00 PM   #40
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
It doesn't mention SPEED or economic windfall but Turtle Boy must believe the report supports his theory. I leave it to you to make your own informed decision.

Safe boating to all
Yes, but did you read the part about public opinion poll results in the study of select economic values of NH lakes,rivers,streams and ponds lists one of the reasons people visit freshwaters are "quality of fishing, boating, and swimming".
"Most residents report that if conditions worsened, they would decrease participating in activities..."

That being said, the loss of that 1% of GFBL boats might well be expected to be offset by income brought to the state by those who found these boats objectionable. So for Dave R, one would not have to be insane to think that a drop in boater visits could lead to an economic windfall. That is why many lake's region businesses have supported speed limits...they believe too (often from their customers who have told them) that the need for speed crowd has indeed driven away business. Commodore might well try to convince you that these perceptions are nothing but Winnfabs myths but in reality I've been hearing of similar experiences for 20 years at work from my colleagues who know I go to Winni. Some of you may remember a not too favorable review of Winni from a Boston Newspaper about 15 years ago, long before the birth of Winnfabs. Winnfabs, with it's many members/contributors, exists today because of these very real issues that have not until recently been addressed.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 03:19 PM   #41
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
So for Dave R, one would not have to be insane to think that a drop in boater visits could lead to an economic windfall. That is why many lake's region businesses have supported speed limits...they believe too (often from their customers who have told them) that the need for speed crowd has indeed driven away business. Commodore might well try to convince you that these perceptions are nothing but Winnfabs myths but in reality I've been hearing of similar experiences for 20 years at work from my colleagues who know I go to Winni. Some of you may remember a not too favorable review of Winni from a Boston Newspaper about 15 years ago, long before the birth of Winnfabs. Winnfabs, with it's many members/contributors, exists today because of these very real issues that have not until recently been addressed.
You are pointing a study that specifically states that a decrease in boater visits will decrease revenue for NH.

Then you argue that a decrease in boater visits will be an economic windfall.

I understand your opinion about why businesses support a speed limit (and have made it a point not to support those businesses since HB162 days), but the study mentions nothing about speed limits or businesses that support them.

Ironically, I'm precisely the sort of person Winnfabs is supposedly looking out for. I don't own a fast or loud boat, I obey the laws, I'm quiet, I'm courteous, and well-behaved, I spend a lot of money in the lakes region, my boat is clean and well maintained, and I have a choice of places to boat because I trailer. I still keep coming despite the unwelcome atmosphere created by speed limit proponents though, I'm just careful where my money goes.
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 03:46 PM   #42
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 Bear Islander View Post
No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.
You keep dodging the question regarding speed limits in those other states where accident rates drop. Did those lakes institute better enforcement policies or what? They don't have speed limits as far as I've seen. Kinda shoots very large holes in your theory BI.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 04:32 PM   #43
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
You keep dodging the question regarding speed limits in those other states where accident rates drop. Did those lakes institute better enforcement policies or what? They don't have speed limits as far as I've seen. Kinda shoots very large holes in your theory BI.
I looked into it. Some have speed limits, most do not. There's no correlation between states where the accident rate dropped and speed limits. There aren't that many states with them.
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 04:44 PM   #44
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
You are pointing a study that specifically states that a decrease in boater visits will decrease revenue for NH.

Then you argue that a decrease in boater visits will be an economic windfall.
What I'm arguing is, in agreement with the many businesses that support speed limits for Winni, that the loss of 1% of boats that so many find loud
and offensive could well be offset by a return of other boaters/vacationers.

A win win for Winni....
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 06:00 PM   #45
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 Turtle Boy View Post
What I'm arguing is, in agreement with the many businesses that support speed limits for Winni, that the loss of 1% of boats that so many find loud
and offensive could well be offset by a return of other boaters/vacationers.

A win win for Winni....
You replace those that spend a thousand without a second thought for those that squeal like a pig when asked to depart with $10. - another example of kayak math.

Interestingly, you seem to omit the fact that business-wise, more opposed than supported the speed limit legislation.

The good news from Concord - the Dems pushed through legislation allowing 85 million in bonds without public input, so they will be able to adequately fund MP this year, no excuses. Now if they will only pass legislation to require all boaters to register their boat(s), regardless of style or size.
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 08:15 PM   #46
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
No... I am not going to provide you with any more copies of statistics I have already posted. I have done so over and over again. Go back and read my old posts, they are all there.

Pay close attention to where the boating accident rate in New Hampshire is on the rise while it is falling in other states. Also review the US Coast Guard Statistics showing speed to be one of the four top causes of boating accidents. The boating deaths on this and other nearby lakes is also illuminating to anyone with a somewhat open mind.
Please define "speed".
The coast guard calls it "excessive speed". But what exactly is excessive speed?
A. Any speed over the limits in HB847
B. Any speed that people are afraid of
C. Any speed deemed excessive for the conditions. This would include a NWZ violation.

The speed limit supporters always point to these stats that discuss "excessive speed". However when asked for the definition of that, they never answer.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 09:09 PM   #47
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
Please define "speed".
The coast guard calls it "excessive speed". But what exactly is excessive speed?
A. Any speed over the limits in HB847
B. Any speed that people are afraid of
C. Any speed deemed excessive for the conditions. This would include a NWZ violation.

The speed limit supporters always point to these stats that discuss "excessive speed". However when asked for the definition of that, they never answer.
It will be quicker if I define denial.

from Webster Online Dictionary

Denial de·ni·al
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
Function: noun

refusal to admit the truth or reality


My personal definition is "refusal to admit the relevance of US Coast Guard speed statistics to HB847".
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 10:06 AM   #48
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
I think this was very well said Evanstar and I have to say that I agree with you and Bear Islander on this one. You present a very fair and convincing case especially with the personal experience you have had in this very area.
Thanks Hazelnut!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
Bear Islander and Evenstar have a point. One issue should not make or break a candidate. Broadbase taxes, school funding, healthcare and funding the state retirement system are more important issues for the Lakes Region than a speed limit. However, it is very telling when elected officials pass a bill that so many were against and adds new restrictions to a targeted group. The issue was lake safety, and they did nothing to improve it. What other nanny laws will they pass because some group funds a campaign of hype?
Thanks for clarifying my point by listed some of the more important issues.

Most bills that are at all controversial stir up the emotions of people on both sides. At the House Transportation Committee Hearing there were just as many people that testified for the bill as against it - so no matter how a Senator votes, their decision is going to upset a large number of people. Emotional bills are pretty much a no win for them.

There was no "targeted group" - as a lake speed limit affects all boats. That's like saying that highway speed limits targets high-performance cars.

Did you listen to the Senate discussion? Those that spoke in support of the bill, spoke mostly about safety. I've spoken to a number of the Senators who voted in favor of the speed limit - and they believe that it will improve safety on the lake. Going slower is safer - that's a fact, on land and on water. You might not agree with a particular speed limit - but, with everything else being equal, slower is safer.

BTW: One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually thinks that Winni is so large that you can't even see land when you're in the middle of it. Talk about being uninformed about something that you are voting against!

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
Many people vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, some based on personal rights or gun issues solely, this isn't new stuff here.
The Senator who I worked for always voted his conscience and most of the Senators I know also vote their conscience. Two Republican Senators voted for this bill and two democrats voted against it - so this was not a party-line vote.

I am not a member of WINNFABS.

Quote:
If these bills were the most contentious, and generated a lot of correspondence and calls, he should therefore deduce that they ARE important, at least to his constituents. Perhaps he should get out more often, and maybe find out why this issue IS important.
You obviously know nothing about this senator to make those comments.

The most important bills are the ones that will have the most effect on the most people - not the ones that upset a relatively small, but very vocal, percentage of the population. These are what I call Political Bills - since they generate the most media coverage. Last year's Civil Union bill (HB 437) is a good example of an emotionally charged Political Bill.

Quote:
...led me to the unanimous conclusion that the primary causes of boating accidents are, 1) Drunks; 2) Irresponsible, careless and negligent boaters.
3) Inexperienced, unknowledgable boaters that get themselves into trouble unwittingly;4) Accidents happen in any activity.
Yes, and 1 through 3 all become more dangerous as speed increases. Which is why slower speed are safer.

As far as #4 goes, I do not remember hearing any Senator who voted in favor of the speed limit (or any other supporter) stating that a lake speed limit would eliminate all accidents. Most supporters feel that unlimited speeds on a recreational lake puts some boaters at unnecessarily high risks, which a speed limit will help reduce.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 11:41 AM   #49
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 Bear Islander View Post
It will be quicker if I define denial.

from Webster Online Dictionary

Denial de·ni·al
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
Function: noun

refusal to admit the truth or reality


My personal definition is "refusal to admit the relevance of US Coast Guard speed statistics to HB847".
misdirection
mis·di·rec·tion Pronunciation [mis-di-rek-shuhn]

the act of distracting; drawing someone's attention away from something; "conjurers are experts at misdirection" [syn: distraction]
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 12:33 PM   #50
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Fear Mongering = The art of citing a ridiculously small percentage of incidents when argueing a point such that the rules of "A reasonable and prudent man" are thrown out the proverbial window and these small percentage incidents are percieved by the mongerors to be the norm when in fact it isn't.
EricP is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 06:02 PM   #51
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 hazelnut View Post
You keep dodging the question regarding speed limits in those other states where accident rates drop. Did those lakes institute better enforcement policies or what? They don't have speed limits as far as I've seen. Kinda shoots very large holes in your theory BI.
What Theory? I don't know why accident rates are dropping in other states. I said so very plainly.

I do know that we are going in the wrong direction, while other states seem to be going in the right direction. That tells me something must be done. A speed limit is something we can try quickly and cheaply.

It seems like the opposition wants to try NOTHING! They talk about increased enforcement and improved boater education. However it's just talk, no legislation is being written. No funding is being found.

And that's the big problem with those ideas. They cost a lot of money, and there isn't any. And there isn't going to be any, anytime soon.

So you tell me. How do we turn around the trend? Because your "NO LIMITS" policy is not getting the job done.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 07:33 PM   #52
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 Bear Islander View Post
What Theory? I don't know why accident rates are dropping in other states. I said so very plainly.

I do know that we are going in the wrong direction, while other states seem to be going in the right direction. That tells me something must be done. A speed limit is something we can try quickly and cheaply.

It seems like the opposition wants to try NOTHING! They talk about increased enforcement and improved boater education. However it's just talk, no legislation is being written. No funding is being found.

And that's the big problem with those ideas. They cost a lot of money, and there isn't any. And there isn't going to be any, anytime soon.

So you tell me. How do we turn around the trend? Because your "NO LIMITS" policy is not getting the job done.
Great way to legislate BI, throw enough excrement against the wall and see what sticks? Hey what the heck lets give it a try.

Seriously

As a society I really thought we had advanced beyond the ole hey we have a problem lets use no scientific evidence and treat a bullet wound with chewing gum approach cuz its cheap and easy method. Guess I was wrong?
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 08:52 PM   #53
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 hazelnut View Post
Great way to legislate BI, throw enough excrement against the wall and see what sticks? Hey what the heck lets give it a try.

Seriously

As a society I really thought we had advanced beyond the ole hey we have a problem lets use no scientific evidence and treat a bullet wound with chewing gum approach cuz its cheap and easy method. Guess I was wrong?
That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 09:31 PM   #54
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
That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.
Expecting a speed limit to reduce the number of over 45 mph accidents that aren't happening is a pipe dream
EricP is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 10:35 PM   #55
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 Bear Islander View Post
That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.
WOW did FLL get a hold of BI's computer and screen name????
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 08:48 AM   #56
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
WOW did FLL get a hold of BI's computer and screen name????
It's heat stroke
EricP is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 08:53 AM   #57
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
It will be quicker if I define denial.

from Webster Online Dictionary

Denial de·ni·al
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
Function: noun

refusal to admit the truth or reality


My personal definition is "refusal to admit the relevance of US Coast Guard speed statistics to HB847".
For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 09:13 AM   #58
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer you will turn blue and die first.
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 11:33 AM   #59
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
For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.

We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again. Post them if you like. You are able to convince yourself that they do not pertain to speed limits. Which only shows how far people can go to rationalize their behavior.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 12:11 PM   #60
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again.
Certainly there is , because excessive speed AKA Coast Guard definition , doesn't necessarily means high speed.
You could have 200 accidents in Weirs channel all at "excessive" speed and all be less than 10 mph
So to campaign for a speed limit lets just lump them into one catagory to scare people.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 01:12 PM   #61
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".
Islander is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 02:37 PM   #62
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
Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".
There is no connection. They are 2 completely different things and this is exactly what was used to pass HB847, lumping them together along with inciting fear.
EricP is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 03:01 PM   #63
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 Cal View Post
Certainly there is , because excessive speed AKA Coast Guard definition , doesn't necessarily means high speed.
You could have 200 accidents in Weirs channel all at "excessive" speed and all be less than 10 mph
So to campaign for a speed limit lets just lump them into one catagory to scare people.
I’ve explained all this numerous times before, but you guys still refuse to accept that speed and accidents are connected, so I'll repost this part yet again:

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Piercelace happens to agrees with me: Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 04:55 PM   #64
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
There is no connection. They are 2 completely different things and this is exactly what was used to pass HB847, lumping them together along with inciting fear.

The New Opposition Logo!
Attached Images
 
Islander is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 05:41 PM   #65
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

actually...
Attached Images
 
EricP is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:05 PM   #66
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Today's Laconia Daily Sun reports that Republican Laconia City Councilor Greg Knytych will challenge Democrat State Senator Kathleen Sgambati for the district 4 Senate seat. Senator Sgambati voted in favor of the Speed Limit bill, so now those of us who were against the speed limit can have our say, and vote against her - hopefully sending her packing. I, for one, will be sending a generous donation to her opponent!

God Bless America!

www.laconiadailysun.com
The poll had 64 votes opposed to speed limits, but less than a handful want to replace their Senator?
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:53 PM   #67
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 Islander View Post
Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".

Some like to tout the USCG statements, but absolutely hate the definition. Rule 6 was another favorite.

From the advocate's responses, you'd think Winni was overcome with tremendous accidents due to speed. But like most other bodies of water, they aren't.

It's been admitted here many times that the primary problems are inattention and drunks. Some say since we can't enforce that, the speed limits are good.

Just how stupid is that?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 08:02 PM   #68
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 Islander View Post
The New Opposition Logo!
Islander I know you are just BI's parrot but do you even get it?

The reality is that you supporters keep posting the coast guard stats on accidents that involve "excessive speed" and sighting the need for a speed limit to cure the "problem, yet "excessive speed" could be 20MPH when a boat is 25 feet away from another vessel or even 10mph in a NWZ or even 6mph when hitting a dock. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp???
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 08:50 PM   #69
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
We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again. Post them if you like. You are able to convince yourself that they do not pertain to speed limits. Which only shows how far people can go to rationalize their behavior.
We do? OK what are the Coast Guard definitions? How does the CG define excessive speed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".
You are correct. In my world, there really IS NO connection between excessive speed and speed limits.

I will ask yet again...is excessive speed as defined by the CG a speed over the limits defined in HB847?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 10:27 PM   #70
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

Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:51 AM   #71
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.

Simple: If some one is traveling over the speed limit and they hit some one the law does not help anyone. The person will have already his some one, the damage is already done. Do you really think that the guy that was in voilation is at that time going to care about the speeding ticket? They will be more worried about the damage of the accident.

The problem is how many accidents have occored on lake Winni over your speed limit? How many have happened under your speed limit? The answer is FAR MORE under the speed limit. So have you made the lake safer? NO

Your first point about says it all, remove the boats you do not like from the lake and make them go to another. That is what this is all about.

"Overall, boating remains a safe, enjoyable way for Americans to recreate," adds Rear Admiral Watson

Ooops late for work try and finish later
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 08:02 AM   #72
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
Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.
My point to you is this:
You are interjecting the limits in HB847 in the Coast Guard statistics regarding excessive speed. Yes, there may be some accidents above the HB847 limits. But the point it that HB847 does not eliminate the excessive speed accidents that you are referring to.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:10 AM   #73
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
My point to you is this:
You are interjecting the limits in HB847 in the Coast Guard statistics regarding excessive speed. Yes, there may be some accidents above the HB847 limits. But the point it that HB847 does not eliminate the excessive speed accidents that you are referring to.
Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:21 AM   #74
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post

The person will have already hit some one, the damage is already done. Do you really think that the guy that was in voilation is at that time going to care about the speeding ticket?
WOW! Are you wrong about this one!

If your boat is going say 70 mph and you are in a fatal accident do you think the ticket is going to be your only problem?

Even if you did nothing else wrong the speeding violation can make it Criminaly Negligent Homicide!

If nobody dies you will still have a lot more hot water to deal with than a speeding ticket. You are being naive.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 11:53 AM   #75
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 Island Lover View Post
Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.
I completely agree with the bolded statement.
However...of the statistics given by the USCG, how many of the excessive speed accidents were above the limits in HB847?

This is such a basic question, I wonder why you can't answer it?
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:16 PM   #76
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
I completely agree with the bolded statement.
However...of the statistics given by the USCG, how many of the excessive speed accidents were above the limits in HB847?

This is such a basic question, I wonder why you can't answer it?
I'm glad you admit at last that HB847 will prevent accidents.



Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:31 PM   #77
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 Island Lover View Post
Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?
It is your agenda and your burden to prove...

Apparently, a burden you are unable to alleviate, without equivocating...
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 12:50 PM   #78
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 Island Lover View Post
I'm glad you admit at last that HB847 will prevent accidents.



Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?
Because you and BI keep implying that excessive speed means >45/25.

Pick a year, any year.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 01:04 PM   #79
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
Because you and BI keep implying that excessive speed means >45/25.

Pick a year, any year.
I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 01:13 PM   #80
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 01:37 PM   #81
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
Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...
Can we add to this analogy a group opposed to any new septic restrictions. Their slogan is "NO RESTRICTIONS". They do not offer any viable alternative plan to improve water quality of limit spills. They cling to the fact that government water quality specifications do not specifically mention four bedroom homes. Therefore, they believe, they do not apply.

Sometimes you can't solve the problem, you can only limit the damage.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 01:59 PM   #82
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 Island Lover View Post
I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.
Thank you for admitting that.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 02:10 PM   #83
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 Islander
Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.
Most boats stay under the 45/25 proposed limits now, with no speed limit law!

You still have left unanswered the question I raised after you made a wild accusation about the number of accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 caused by speed. Let me remind you by posting what you have still refused to back up in your haste to fear monger and even provide you the link to the stats for NH.


Here is a link to the 2006 NH Boating Stats provided by Woodsy
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4283

Quote:
Quote:
Originally popsted by Islander
This is the typical "let's pretend there is no problem" argument. Also known as "but I want to go fast".

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!
Islander, you make claims and fear monger and yet when called on it the silence is deafening!
Quote:
Quote:
Posted by Islander
"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?
Then:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Islander:
I think you left out a few qualifications. That data is only for one year on one lake. Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed
You really need to post all those qualifications.
Quote:
I responded:
I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.
What you continue to fail to do, or ignore, is any statistic, report or fact to back up your claim!
Again I ask, ISLANDER, YOU CLAIM
Quote:
Quote:
"Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed"
SHOW ME WHERE!
I have shown you my statistics, my references and my links. All you do is say NO NO NO. Prove it!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:45 PM   #84
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
Most boats stay under the 45/25 proposed limits now, with no speed limit law!
Therefore some boats exceed 45/25. It is for them the law was written.

The boats that do not exceed 45/25 will not be effected by the law.

See how perfectly this works!
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:58 PM   #85
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
WOW! Are you wrong about this one!

If your boat is going say 70 mph and you are in a fatal accident do you think the ticket is going to be your only problem?

Even if you did nothing else wrong the speeding violation can make it Criminaly Negligent Homicide!

If nobody dies you will still have a lot more hot water to deal with than a speeding ticket. You are being naive.
You need to go back and re-read my post because you just said the exact same thing that I did. Lets say the guy barrels into a crowd of boats at 70 and kill some one, they likely will never see the speeding ticket show up as that fine will likely be dropped anyhow as they go through the trial as part of the plee process. As you said the fact that the person traveling at 70 would be facing criminal chages of that magnitude would far outweigh the concern of the speeding ticket. The fact is the guy would face the same changes if they did it today as they did in one year. You make it sound like if I ran over some one today on the lake I would walk off scott free. That is totally false. He will face the same chages.

The problem is you guys are passing a law for a problem that simply does not exist. The one accident that is pointed to over and over again happened at an estimated 1-2MPH over the new mimit? He would not have received a speeding violation.... It is just another law on the books that is there to try and protect people from a problem that does not exist.
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 04:20 PM   #86
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post
You need to go back and re-read my post because you just said the exact same thing that I did. Lets say the guy barrels into a crowd of boats at 70 and kill some one, they likely will never see the speeding ticket show up as that fine will likely be dropped anyhow as they go through the trial as part of the plee process. As you said the fact that the person traveling at 70 would be facing criminal chages of that magnitude would far outweigh the concern of the speeding ticket. The fact is the guy would face the same changes if they did it today as they did in one year. You make it sound like if I ran over some one today on the lake I would walk off scott free. That is totally false. He will face the same chages.

The problem is you guys are passing a law for a problem that simply does not exist. The one accident that is pointed to over and over again happened at an estimated 1-2MPH over the new mimit? He would not have received a speeding violation.... It is just another law on the books that is there to try and protect people from a problem that does not exist.
I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 04:35 PM   #87
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,448
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

'Making a law for a problem that doesn't exist' is simply not true. Lake Winnipesaukee is the go-to lake for large, powerfull, and fast boats. From 22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph. The owners obviously bought these go-fasts to be using them and Lake Winnipesaukee is where they live.

Racing cars have race tracks. Go-fast boats have Lake Winnipesaukee!

So, what about all the kayaks, sailboats, and smaller boats that want to use the lake? Kind of tough sharing the water with these big monster boats!

HI-speed boating needs its own venue, like maybe Sundays from 2-5, out in the broads, in a designated area, just like a race track. To say that the entire lake should be a race track is a no-go.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:33 PM   #88
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 FLL
Lake Winnipesaukee is the go-to lake for large, powerfull, and fast boats. From 22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph. The owners obviously bought these go-fasts to be using them and Lake Winnipesaukee is where they live.
The problem with that argument that you continually ignore because it flys in the face of your "logic" is the statistics show these boats are not a problem!

Because a boat is capable of speed doesn't go hand in hand with causing problems.

Look at the stats from above and show me JUST ONE of those "22 to 47' go fasts powered by twin engines capable of going 60-107mph." that caused or was even involved in an accident on Lake Winnipesaukee that HB847 would address.

Still waiting for Islander to enlighten us about those 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee involving speed in 2006!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:34 PM   #89
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 fatlazyless View Post
So, what about all the kayaks, sailboats, and smaller boats that want to use the lake? Kind of tough sharing the water with these big monster boats!
I thought that is what Squam is for...
codeman671 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:46 PM   #90
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 Island Lover View Post
I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?
I think you are the one that is wrong. The RSA is the RSA. The penalties of breaking the RSA are predetermined. What would come into play is other laws broken that already exist which hold a higher penalty- reckless op/driving to endanger, possibly vehicular homocide if there was a fatality, failure to maintain proper lookout, safe passage, and many others that are already on the books. The speeding ticket is not going to land someone in jail (unless their existing record warrants it), nor is it going to yield an excessive fine.

A prosecutor is going to go for the throat, they are not going to screw around with fighting a speeding ticket. It would most likely be included but not the focus of litigation.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:53 AM   #91
winnilaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.
– Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In what situation would unsafe behavior/boating threatening lives not be covered by this law?

House Bill 847 only suggests a violation for a speed infraction, 270:29-a enables more of a penalty for those who drive recklessly and makes it a misdemeanor! HB847 has nothing to do about safety or facts, it's about sending message to those who are unwanted. Like those, as lazy put it, BIG MONSTER BOATS! Sounds more like the haves vs. the have nots.
winnilaker is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 06:01 AM   #92
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,448
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default ........Lake Winnisquam!

Has anybody mentioned Lake Winnisquam? It's the state's third largest lake, after Winnpesaukee and Squam.

It's maybe a little easier to get to, from the south, than Winnipesaukee, as it is pretty close to Route 93, exit 20.

As HB 847 applies only to Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam will still be a venue for high speed boats. It has a brand new state owned boat ramp and parking area. It has a number of marinas. It has a convenience store that sells beer, potato chips and worms with its own dock right next to Mosquito Bridge. It has a popular rafting spot that attracts a lot of boats including a public toilet boat.

It is a large and, very well marked, and has a natural sandy bottom, with hardly any rocks, anywhere.

After boating on Winnisquam, the high speed boaters will be saying: 'So who needs Winnipesaukee, we love Winnisquam!'
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:05 AM   #93
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 HB847 sets the Standard

Quote:
Originally Posted by winnilaker View Post
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.
– Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In what situation would unsafe behavior/boating threatening lives not be covered by this law?
HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:00 AM   #94
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
HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".
True, but as I mentioned above the punishment comes in the form of a speeding ticket and points on your license, unless you already have a bunch of points on your record and are that close to suspension anyhow it is a simple fine. Other laws in existance hold criminal charges, such as the one that winnilaker mentioned. The gripe seems to be whether having a speed limit law on the books will have serious effect in a negligent boating accident, I do not see that it would. A fine gets paid, if in fact they actually could prove speed.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:56 AM   #95
Mashugana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Exclamation Not all situations are alike

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".

We have heard all this rhetoric many times already . Why do we need a 150 foot rule if careless and negligent operations rules took care of every offense? If we do not need speed limits defined for us then why have safe passage defined? That is a flawed argument. You seem to say we need to define every possible unsafe situation or it can not be enforced.

You neglect to talk about all the rules regarding reasonable safe speeds for the conditions and boating responsibly and safely. The rules in place right now are more than adequate to provide proper tools for the Judges and the Marine Patrol.

Your insistance that if we don't need these new speed limits then we don't need many of the other laws is a faulty argument. No new laws are needed. Stronger enforcement of what is in place right now is the solution.
Mashugana is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:59 AM   #96
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
True, but as I mentioned above the punishment comes in the form of a speeding ticket and points on your license, unless you already have a bunch of points on your record and are that close to suspension anyhow it is a simple fine. Other laws in existance hold criminal charges, such as the one that winnilaker mentioned. The gripe seems to be whether having a speed limit law on the books will have serious effect in a negligent boating accident, I do not see that it would. A fine gets paid, if in fact they actually could prove speed.
I will agree that the penalties for speeding can't be more than specified in HB847. However if you are talking about a charge like criminally negligent homicide, I would expect that the speeding violation could make a big difference.

If you were going twice the speed limit when the accident occurred, that is a strong indication you were negligent, even criminally negligent.

With no speed limit you can argue the speed you were going was reasonable, you may win that battle of you may lose. However if you were going twice the legal speed limit it's going to be very hard to show you were not negligent.

I'm surprised Skip has not jumped in on this one, he must have experience in this.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 12:04 PM   #97
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default There is no such rule!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana View Post
You neglect to talk about all the rules regarding reasonable safe speeds for the conditions and boating responsibly and safely. The rules in place right now are more than adequate to provide proper tools for the Judges and the Marine Patrol.
What rule are you talking about? Can you quote a New Hampshire law or boating regulation that refers to "reasonable safe speeds".
Island Lover is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:49 PM   #98
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
HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".

Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.
.
OK here's a stunning thought from me.I actually agree with BI in the most part with this post.What I don't agree with is the premiss that this law will change the occurances of the very few accidents that were at so-called "high" speed.I also disagree about this law setting "exact"limits on speed as has been pointed out by SKIP in another thread.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 04:39 PM   #99
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

BI: Lets say hypothetically there are twice as many accidents in 09 as 08, would you then remove your sapport of renewing the speed limit and opt. for some other change?
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 04:55 PM   #100
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
What rule are you talking about? Can you quote a New Hampshire law or boating regulation that refers to "reasonable safe speeds".
The part of the law that is reasonable states; "No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore."

If they had stopped there, instead of playing nanny and picking an speed above which they assumed was unsafe, we'd all be happy. I wonder how many law makers that voted for the law have a boaters certificate.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer 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 04:37 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.35767 seconds