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 06-25-2008, 02:56 PM   #1
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 Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

Governor will sign the Speed Limit bill HB847.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-117786073e99
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 03:34 PM   #2
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
Islander is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 03:36 PM   #3
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
You will also be hard pressed to see any change.
Ryan is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 03:54 PM   #4
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 486
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

Huh? I thought they were fighting for a speed limit...
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:21 PM   #5
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default ...surprised & pleased!

Sure, I'm pleased that Gov Lynch has decided to sign HB 847, but I'm also surprised that it did not meet up with his veto.

Having passed the senate by 14-10 on May 15, I was really wondering what the delay could be. It is safe to assume that the Senate President and the Governor, both Democrats, must have discussions about pending bills before a bill is submitted to the Governor for his signature.

Maybe it was just a case of me getting 'nervous in the service' but I thought that as time went by, HB 847's likelihood of approval was dimming.
......

"A lot of Bills will go across Gov. John Lynch's desk, but few will rise to the level of a veto.
Two considered ripe for the stamp are a bariatric surgery bill and one that sets up a two-year speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee."

Union Leader, Sunday June 15, Tom Fahey's political opinion column
......

A big round of applause to Governor Lynch, and should he decide to challenge Senator Gregg in November 2010, he will most likely get my vote.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 06-25-2008 at 09:52 PM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 06-25-2008, 09:17 PM   #6
watrskir
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 37
Thanks: 33
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

looks like I wont be voting for lynch again!!
watrskir is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:25 PM   #7
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by watrskir View Post
looks like I wont be voting for lynch again!!
Did you know that his Republican opponent for the governor's race in November, State Senator Joe Kenney, (R) Wakefield was one of two Republican senators who voted yes to HB 847.

There were two Republican senators voting yes, and two Democrats voting no........go figure?

Plus, Senator Kenney is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Marine Corps.

Maybe, I should vote for Senator Kenney for Governor!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:45 PM   #8
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
Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
Absolutely. No longer will completely drunk people be able to speed on the lake, possibly going as fast as 28 mph and running over another boat.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:54 PM   #9
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 VtSteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander
Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
Absolutely. No longer will completely drunk people be able to speed on the lake, possibly going as fast as 28 mph and running over another boat.
Right you are VtSteve, and watch for the influx of Marine Patrol boats, crews and even a couple of Marine Patrol aircraft from all the extra funding provided by HB847!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:54 PM   #10
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
Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
Congrats to your efforts. I truly hope this legislation does what you think it will do. NO, not chase GF-Boats off the lake but increase safety on the lake. It will be quite a while before we can assess the impact but time will certainly tell.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:55 PM   #11
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

"They" told us they would leave Winni. Now we should pray for the boaters and the residents along the shores of Long Lake, Lake Ossipee, and Dave R's quiet lake in Maine.
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:07 PM   #12
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Talking Nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs View Post
"They" told us they would leave Winni. Now we should pray for the boaters and the residents along the shores of Long Lake, Lake Ossipee, and Dave R's quiet lake in Maine.
We are not leaving................. This is our lake not yours.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:57 PM   #13
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

I seriously doubt that anything will change. It's a sad day for the lake actually. There has never been a speed problem on the lake. Once again our legislators wasted our time and money passing a useless law. I am so glad I pay for this kind of intelligence. I congratulate noone as I don't think rewarding fear mongerers is warranted.
EricP is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:25 AM   #14
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Here's WMUR's story:

Governor to sign boat-speed bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting how the governor says speed was an issue and the story says right after that the NHMP found that speed WAS NOT AN ISSUE.Apparently he has no confidence in his Marine Patrol and does not believe the work they did and he must have conducted his own speed survey to arrive at that conclusion.Pretty lame.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:27 AM   #15
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
I'm disappointed the governor is going to sign it. I'm out 70 times a year and I haven't seen anything that says we need it." said Hickok, adding that it will result in the state expending funds on a problem he does not think exists.

Hickok travels Winnipesaukee on everything from a rowing scull to a 28-foot bowrider and said the new law will do little to curb the problems on the state's largest lake.
The last two paragraphs from today's article, June 26 www.citizen.com, by Geoff Cunningham Jr.
.....

And, what about the 27' twin hull Skater-Cat, powered by two Merc 300hp two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the broads?

That is one incredibly hot boat............bbbbbzzzzzz........sort of like Nascar on the water.

I still say Winnipesaukee should have a designated go-fast area and time.....such as Wednesdays and Sundays, noon-3, out on the broads. Winnipesaukee has been growing as a fast boat lake since 1925, and everyone knows that Winnipesaukee is the place to go for big, fast boats.

I could putt-putt out there in my ancient Starcraft and watch the big boats roar back & forth, from behind the safety of a designated orange buoy, off-track border area. Sort of like Nascar on the water.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:52 AM   #16
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 Airwaves View Post
Right you are VtSteve, and watch for the influx of Marine Patrol boats, crews and even a couple of Marine Patrol aircraft from all the extra funding provided by HB847!
[sarcasm] That is great news for people who boat on a lake not named Winnipesaukee. Since the MPs will be focusing their manpower on a speed problem there, they will be free to ride unlimited speeds on other lakes! Sweet! [/sarcasm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
The last two paragraphs from today's article, June 26 www.citizen.com, by Geoff Cunningham Jr.
.....

And, what about the 27' twin hull Skater-Cat, powered by two Merc 300hp two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the broads?

That is one incredibly hot boat............bbbbbzzzzzz........sort of like Nascar on the water.

I still say Winnipesaukee should have a designated go-fast area and time.....such as Wednesdays and Sundays, noon-3, out on the broads. Winnipesaukee has been growing as a fast boat lake since 1925, and everyone knows that Winnipesaukee is the place to go for big, fast boats.

I could putt-putt out there in my ancient Starcraft and watch the big boats roar back & forth, from behind the safety of a designated orange buoy, off-track border area. Sort of like Nascar on the water.
Right you are Less. After all, that one boat travelling at 107 mph put so many people in jeopardy. How many accidents did that boat cause again? Please refresh my memory.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 10:50 PM   #17
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

At the risk of revealing my true identity as Clark Kent, Define ATC and where you heard or read or saw this:
Quote:
Originally posted by 2Blackdogs
I would strongly disagree with any claim that the damage caused to that boat could have been caused during salvage. That boat is evidence in a criminal investigation. It would have been handled with kid gloves with law enforcement personnel watching. It's hard to argue with facts but easy to say, "Big Deal." Well, the deaths of innocent passengers is a big deal, in my opinion. And two such deaths in six years on one lake caused by people who should know better is an even bigger deal.

This will fuel the speed limit fires and most likely cause speed limits to be established. The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts. The operator, a professional, is 100% responsible for this death. There's no doubt in my mind that the courts will also find similarly, if not in criminal court, certainly in civil court.
Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
Posted - Jun 21 2008 : 15:47:20
Because I WILL follow up!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 11:21 PM   #18
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Superman to the rescue!

ATC means...."Ask The Captain" It's nothing more that a forum like this one!!!

So you are trying to link what "Ask the Captain" forum says to the accident?

Unless you can show that L Hall is involved in the investigation as he/she appears to suggest;
Quote:
The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts.
If he/she is involved in the investigation I would recommend legal action against him/her immediately! If L Hall isn't, then what is your point? Just another uninformed speculation opinion that in MHO could be sued!


AW (aka Clark Kent)
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 06:26 AM   #19
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 2Blackdogs View Post
"The Mod" seems to agree with you, 'cuz my replies are being delayed.

Since I don't want to offend your tender sensibilities too much in one post, I'll proceed very slowly with my rebuttals.

Just now, I found a second "idiot".



Note ye well the date. It was four days before your reply. And I have yet some more surprises for you, and for the forum at large on this issue.
I don't have enough facts to disagree with him or not. Gut reaction, he's right, I don't have any problems at all with his statements. Excessive speed for conditions is a long held navigational rule. Doing 20 mph in heavy fog conditions with no radar, etc... is excessive. Piloting a boat while intoxicated will get you into a heap of trouble if caught, especially in an accident. I don't disagree with any of that, I've stated the above. The facts will probably show this, I don't know.

But your continued linking of nonsensical statements, weaving them into a discussion where they have no place, is not right. If someone is intoxicated, and drives an express cruiser into the rocks on a dark and foggy night, the first thing that comes to my mind is not the size or speed of the boat. Your first thoughts are the type of boat and the speed. Most people wouldn't think of a speed limit first as a solution, you would.

So I'm not offended at all, just amazed really.

Forgot train of thought, not enough coffee. I wouldn't term that response idiotic. In fact, as I've stated, I agree with his broad statements. Who knows what this case will show, I think I am leaning a few ways, but I don't know the facts.

The response you pasted above is not offensive, at least not to be. But please don't for a minute think that anyone would relate your responses to that one. If you think you're that straighforward, don't. Your first two sentences to my reply are confusing enough, to follow that with a sensible response apparently copied from another site is even more confusing. That post id not idiotic, but yours are.

Last edited by VtSteve; 06-27-2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Forgot main reply
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 07:38 AM   #20
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 2Blackdogs View Post
"The Mod" seems to agree with you, 'cuz my replies are being delayed.

Since I don't want to offend your tender sensibilities too much in one post, I'll proceed very slowly with my rebuttals.

Just now, I found a second "idiot".



Note ye well the date. It was four days before your reply. And I have yet some more surprises for you, and for the forum at large on this issue.
Looks just like any of the posts here...one persons OPINION.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 08:36 AM   #21
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

BoaterEd is definitely not the same kind of forum. They deal with life and death issues on a much broader, national, and even international scale.

VtSteve writes:
Quote:
The response you pasted above is not offensive, at least not to be. But please don't for a minute think that anyone would relate your responses to that one. If you think you're that straighforward, don't. Your first two sentences to my reply are confusing enough, to follow that with a sensible response apparently copied from another site is even more confusing. That post id not idiotic, but yours are.
Last edited by VtSteve; 06-27-2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Forgot main reply
Thank you for editing that, as I had trouble following your first attempt at it.

VtSteve, I still stand by my own observations of moon and weather. Do you stand by your own speed limit posts that anyone can view on the World Wide Web? Or is it, somehow, unfair to list these?

Quote:
"Lake Champlain is quite a bit different than Winni. Not as congested, spread out."

"Can we all agree that it's stupid to go through a 6mph zone at 80mph at night? Can we at least respect ourselves and others to do that? How stupid is it that they go 90 in a NWZ, and they want a 45 mph speed limit on the lake?"

"Yes, we all have a few beers."

"Courtesy was not their forte. You know the type, the ones that spoil the school dance for everyone, the ones that spoil parties due to their being obnoxious."

"Absolutely wild in a Donzi 18. My BIL had one that freaked me out at about 70."


"The drinks on the lake are getting quite expensive."

"Some adolescents never learn. And almost always, they ruin it for others."

"Bear Islander truly needs a smack up side the head to bring him to reality."

"I knew it would come to this. Just a few ******* ruin it for everyone. But the arrogance of a few standout powerboats is all the weenies need for a group to focus on. As they say, police yourselves or perish."

~VtSteve
Well, enough of that.

As I earlier told Evenstar and am advising you and Airwaves now, the Speed Limit forum will gradually diminish into nothingness once the rants fade away.

The House and Senate granted approvals, and the Governor will sign HB847.

On this lake, Vermonters and Mainers need to accept this Legislature's long-considered debate, just as others must accept the consequence that some unwanted company will be visiting you.

The Granite State has spoken.




Sincerely yours,

Pond scum
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 01:21 PM   #22
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Well, I see that not only do you have enough time to follow me around on the internet, you also take my posts out of context, without links. Probably wise for you, since everyone would wonder why you were quoting me in the first place. You've rarely answered direct questions, nor do you reply without an evasive answer.

One note, That was most certainly not my writing about Bear Islander. Perhaps you should link it and admit your intent. You're a very intellectually dishonest person BD, and I'm sure that many speed limit supporters would prefer that you weren't on their side on this issue, at least not on paper.

You're childish, and quite unethical. But character issues don't deter you at all, just your agenda. You will note that I use the same online name in all forums, so perhaps that helped you out a bit. I have nothing to hide about my online posts, in fact, I'd prefer that people saw what I posted on other boards. Fairly consistent and open.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 01:22 PM   #23
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

2Blackdogs
I guess I missed the point of you latest post. I was responding to your acertion that something Les Hall of ATC wrote was fact. I pointed out that Les Hall is nothing more than a poster on a forum much like this and that unless he is directly involved in the investigation, he is just speculating without direct knowledge.

When we learn the facts of the case then we can discuss them, til then I'll wait.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 02:52 PM   #24
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Perhaps I can understand Don not wanting to flood another site or sites, and I'm fine with this.

Here's some of my (unedited) posts.

"It's been 10 years since I was over at Winni, spending some 30 years on the lake. There were quite a few go fast boats way back, but certainly not with the engines and size as are available now.

My advice, is to just use common sense. Realize that lakes are for everyone, and you'll have to deal with everything from cayaks and canoes to huge cabin cruisers. Be courteous, and you'll earn the respect of the MP. After awhile, they'll get to know who the trouble makers are, and the majority will be fine."
__________________________________________________ ___________

"It's all about attitude men. I grew up on that lake, around the time of the first series of noisemakers. Not real speed, just noise. I love fast boats, and I love that lake. The problem was always to contain those that snubbed everyone's rights. Courtesy was not their forte. You know the type, the ones that spoil the school dance for everyone, the ones that spoil parties due to their being obnoxious.

I'm all for freedom on the lake, and winced when I saw the speed limit pass. Back in the 80's, maybe earlier, I knew it would come to this. Just a few a-holes ruin it for everyone. My own personal belief is that most of the a-holes are the new wakeboard boat set. But the arrogance of a few standout powerboats is all the weenies need for a group to focus on. As they say, police yourselves or perish.

Some adolescents never learn. And almost always, they ruin it for others."
__________________________________________________ _________

"Whether the site sucks or not is of no importance to me. Obviously it's not the caliber that this one is. I've not had an issue there at all.

The best way to find the root of a problem is to listen to all sides. It's taken two years plus to find the core issues. It didn't take me that long at all, that's what I do.

When people have the ability and the support to enact legislation that can impact your favorite things in a negative manner, it makes sense to find out what the fuss is all about. In a nutshell,

1) It's not really about speed, as I guessed.
2) Noise (you've heard this one before I suspect)
3) Reckless behavior
4) Disrespect for the lake, it's residents, and boating.

That's what "Some" in the GF community have left as an impression on those folks. What percentage it is, I have no idea, probably the same few all the time.

If I could keep my lake from having a ridiculous speed limit by eliminating the real bozos that are screwing it up, I'd make sure I did it. It's easy to be contentious online, and it typically is. But go fats boaters have families like everyone else, and most take pride in their boats, not to mention the investments made. I'd wager a guess than most on this forum have far more boating expertise and common sense than the majority of recreational boaters.

I'd not frequent a lake that has the types of restrictions Lake George has on it now, and I suspect they have those limits for the very same reasons Winni is looking into it. If we're all lucky, the law will not pass, and better solutions will prevail."

My response to the Lake George accident thread. Where the driver of a Cobalt bowrider was charged with BUI after running up onto an island.

"The drinks on the lake are getting quite expensive."

Get it BD?

__________________________________________________ _______

Last edited by VtSteve; 06-30-2008 at 02:57 PM. Reason: missed one
VtSteve is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 03:15 PM   #25
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

The member responsible for "Bear Islander truly needs a smack up side the head to bring him to reality." is Cal not VtSteve.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 05:19 PM   #26
Coastal Laker
Senior Member
 
Coastal Laker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In the Beautiful Lakes Region of course!
Posts: 130
Thanks: 1
Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts
Default A Better Lake for Many, Not All

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.
How will we know at the conclusion of 2010 if the light traffic on the lake is due to fuel prices getting worse and the affordability of boats diminishing, or the speed limits preventing people from buying new boats or coming here? Regardless, traffic on the lake is less and less what it was only a few years ago.
Coastal Laker is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 05:25 PM   #27
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Most every lake has seen slow traffic this year for some reason or another. Pretty calm and quiet here as well, with no speed limits.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 07:29 AM   #28
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

My midnight view of landforms miles away was possible due to the fully lighted night sky silhouetting them. One solar light on unlighted islands' docks would contribute nothing to night sky pollution, but benefit the night boater. If the N***A was truly an organization for Winni boaters, it's a suggestion they never published during their entire existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
2Blackdogs
I guess I missed the point of you latest post. I was responding to your acertion that something Les Hall of ATC wrote was fact. I pointed out that Les Hall is nothing more than a poster on a forum much like this and that unless he is directly involved in the investigation, he is just speculating without direct knowledge.

When we learn the facts of the case then we can discuss them, til then I'll wait.
Les doesn't have the advantage of having viewed the scene as I have. But he's "The Mod", as Vermont Steve would call him at BoaterEd.com, and is characteristically very much on-target with his observations.

Given that, which opinions do you disagree with?

Quote:
This will fuel the speed limit fires and most likely cause speed limits to be established. The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts. The operator, a professional, is 100% responsible for this death. There's no doubt in my mind that the courts will also find similarly, if not in criminal court, certainly in civil court.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
Right out of the box, Les turned out correct on the Governor's signing of HB847!

Quote:
The woman hit an island, ripped off the front third of the boat and then bounced back 20 or so feet. That fact that she hit the island and did as much damage as she did is prima facie evidence of excessive speed.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
Indisputable evidence.

Quote:
The two accidents that we have discussed here, both resulting in fatalities, were caused by people who certainly should have known better than to operate in the manner that caused the deaths. But we all get complacent. After running in the same waters year after year, it's just human nature to get a little cocky and relax our standards. However, one of the quotes from a previous thread sums it up best:

"The sea is selective, slow at recognition of effort and aptitude but fast in sinking the unfit"

Or, in this case, the irreverent.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
No comment needed.

Quote:
headline reads Boat crash: Beer cans, a night out

THAT, of course, led to this

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-117786073e99

headlined Governor to sign boat-speed bill

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
THAT is what I said, but it got deleted here! "Sterile objectivity" not allowed here.

Quote:
The legislation had passed prior to the accident. However, he hadn't decided if he would sign it or not. However, the head of the organization, misleadingly called the NH recreational boaters association that was formed for the sole purpose of fighting the limits, decided to drink (we don't know how many yet), take her go-fast out on a dark night and run, at speed, into an island, killing one of her best friends. At the very least, it nullifies all the arguments they had been making about self regulation. After this, the public would have been all over him if he had vetoed the legislation.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
"The organization" was resurrected by www.winnilakers.com to fight speed limits. (And stole "The Mods" logo for a long time).

As a result of the collision, the Governor had no options left to veto the bill, and used the airwaves to sign it, even before it could arrive at his desk.

A nice use of the word "airwaves" right, "Airwaves"?

Quote:

RULE 6
Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) the state of visibility;

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
If anyone should side with Les Hall on this, it is Airwaves, but I could be wrong.

It's one thing to be distracted by dropping your cellphone at night while driving, and another to speed merrily along in foggy conditions. Even totally wasted drunks can keep their cars between the curbstones, with the occasional big maple interrupting progress. Here, we have Diamond Island.

Airwaves wants to wait for the answer to come from the back of the courtroom, like Perry Mason.

That's not going to happen.

Bear Islander,

I threw that one in, knowing who said it, but I happen to like the lighthearted way Cal expresses himself here though we disagree. The opponents are truly two-faced, there and here.

I was looking for intellectual honesty from Vermont Steve, but didn't get it. There was no correct attribution, and no link to any of three sites the quotes were taken from. We got spoon-fed "answers" instead, and no mention of the beers they prefer while boating.

BI, since you surf the SL opponents' site, how about the origin of this quote?

Quote:
id find out the trouble makers on the lake and make their lives a living hell...
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 10:01 AM   #29
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 2Blackdogs View Post
As I earlier told Evenstar and am advising you and Airwaves now, the Speed Limit forum will gradually diminish into nothingness once the rants fade away.
Sincerely yours,

Pond scum
Let's hope so because the rants that come from members like yourself do nothing but polarize the two sides instead of having meaningfull discussion.Especially when your rants accuse a member of posting something that was not even his as pointed out by someone on your side of this debate.

Pond Lilly
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 11:13 AM   #30
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 SIKSUKR View Post
Let's hope so because the rants that come from members like yourself do nothing but polarize the two sides instead of having meaningfull discussion.Especially when your rants accuse a member of posting something that was not even his as pointed out by someone on your side of this debate.

Pond Lilly
I have to disagree with you on one point. 2Blackdogs is not a member of "our side" of the debate. He has been a member of the forum for more than four years yet the majority of his posts have been about an accident that happened two weeks ago. And he NEVER posted about speed limits until two days AFTER the Senate passed HB847. He had nothing to say about speed limits until it was all over.

He is a member of the "accident speculation" movement, not the speed limit movement.

As the forums unofficial spokesperson for the pro speed limit side I declare that 2Blackdogs is not a member of our group.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 11:15 AM   #31
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Sorry BI, he hates GF boats and loves the speed limits. You'll have to keep him on your side, no room for him here.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 01:23 PM   #32
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
I have to disagree with you on one point. 2Blackdogs is not a member of "our side" of the debate. He has been a member of the forum for more than four years yet the majority of his posts have been about an accident that happened two weeks ago. And he NEVER posted about speed limits until two days AFTER the Senate passed HB847. He had nothing to say about speed limits until it was all over.

He is a member of the "accident speculation" movement, not the speed limit movement.

As the forums unofficial spokesperson for the pro speed limit side I declare that 2Blackdogs is not a member of our group.
Then we can agree to disagree.Are you telling me 2BD is not a supporter of the speed limit?Please.Pretty sad when neither side wants anything to do a member.Don't get me wrong though BI,I do not put him/her in the same group as you.As much as I disagree with a lot of your viewpoints,I don't see you sink to the same levels.You have also called out a certain member for being inappropriate for obvious reasons and I believe,because it was making the pro speed limit side look bad.That's how I saw it.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 01:32 PM   #33
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Today the day?

If I recall Skip's posting about the process correctly, and assuming the Governor had the bill on his desk when the Union Leader article reported that he will sign it, then the bill has to be signed by the end of the day today?

If not what happens? Is the legislature still in session, does it become law without his signature or is it a pocket veto?

I only suggest the governor had the bill on his desk at the time the UL article was published because I had contacted his office and they said it had not arrived and no decision would be made until it did.

I have not seen any AP or other story indicating that it has already been signed.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 01:41 PM   #34
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 VtSteve View Post
Sorry BI, he hates GF boats and loves the speed limits. You'll have to keep him on your side, no room for him here.
How about a swap then?

Two members for one, plus a boater to be named later.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 02:19 PM   #35
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
How about a swap then?

Two members for one, plus a boater to be named later.

I'd immediately trade BD and TB to the minors, where they would be released. I'll agree to the turnip to be named later. I'll also agree to not make huge protest waves near Bear Island, which would very quickly erode your camp's waterfront. And, not being one to flout the law, I promise next trip over there, I WILL NOT do 90mph through the NWZ. AND, I absolutely, positively, WILL NOT circle Evenstar from 151' making large, loopy waves to see how her sea kayak handles the big stuff.

Just kidding Hon.....

Seriously BI, we both have lots more in common as lake lovers than we disagree on. We also share some of the same problems and concerns. It's doubtful I'll get over your way this year, although I'd like to. Love to meet some of you peeps sometime.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:46 PM   #36
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default Here it is,all signed.

We should all feel safe now and you will not see any more so called "speed" related accidents on Winni.I know I feel so much safer.

From WMUR:

New Law Sets Speed Limits For Lake Winnipesaukee

POSTED: 10:50 am EDT July 8, 2008
UPDATED: 11:08 am EDT July 8, 2008


CONCORD, N.H. -- Boaters who drive fast on Lake Winnipesaukee next summer will risk speeding tickets.

Gov. John Lynch signed a bill into law Monday that sets speed limits on the lake for two years. The speed limits will be 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night, effective Jan. 1.

Boat speed limits have been debated for years. This plan differs from past plans because it applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee and would go off the books in two years.

Speed-limit supporters had argued two years would be plenty of time for a test. They said people are afraid to canoe or swim, especially on weekends when boat traffic is most congested.

Opponents said the limits are unnecessary. They pointed to a state Marine Patrol study last summer that found few boats exceeded the proposed limit. Out of 3,852 boats clocked by radar, only 83 were going faster than 45 mph.

They argued it made no sense to pass a law in hopes a small, inconsiderate group would change its habits.

Two years ago, the House passed a bill to impose limits on all lakes and rivers, but the Senate killed it.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:57 PM   #37
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Time line issue?

I find it interesting that when I contacted Governor Lynch's office in mid-June asking what he was going to do about the bill his staff wrote back and said the bill had not reached his desk and that they wouldn't make a decision until it did.

June 25, a week and a half after the June 17th Diamond Island accident the governor tells the Union Leader he's going to sign it. That would lead me to believe, based on his staffer's comments, that it had arrived at his desk and he liked it.

July 7, Seven working days and 13 calendar days after the newspaper article, he signs it.

A couple of questions come to mind.

Since under NH law he has 5 days to sign or veto a bill after it reaches his desk, when did he get it? After all his staff said he wouldn't decide until it reached his desk and he's quoted on 6/25 as saying his decision had nothing to do with the Diamond Island accident.

Hmmmm?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 02:02 PM   #38
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Wow....Airwaves....talk about being a regular Perry Mason! Without a doubt, the Governor's decision to sign HB 847 was based on SAFE BOATING and had nothing to do with any one individual boat accident.

By the way, did you know that Gov Lynch also signed a law, starting Jan 1, that requires drivers and passengers of snowmobiles & atv's, who are less than 18 years old, to wear helmets and eye protection.

NH is now the only state out of 50 which does not have a mandatory car/light truck seatbelt law for adults, 18 & older. All drivers of bigger trucks & buses, 12000lb gvw & up, are required to wear seatbelts by federal law.

As far as I know, there are no states which require seatbelts in recreational boats or jetskis.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 07-08-2008 at 02:33 PM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #39
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
As far as I know, there are no states which require seatbelts in recreational boats or jetskis.
Thank God for that! I may be the captain, but I don't want to literally go down with my ship.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 05:45 PM   #40
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Post Hemets & eye protection were already required...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
...By the way, did you know that Gov Lynch also signed a law, starting Jan 1, that requires drivers and passengers of snowmobiles & atv's, who are less than 18 years old, to wear helmets and eye protection...
No, that's not what the Governor signed.

RSA 215-C:49 already required operators and passengers under 18 to wear head & eye protection for a number of years now.

What the Governor signed was an ammendment to this existing law that actually says the required head & eye protection must meet or exceed Federal standard FMVSS 218 (DOT certified).

Hope this clarifies the Governor's action.

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 05:52 PM   #41
flyry49
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Wow....Airwaves....talk about being a regular Perry Mason! Without a doubt, the Governor's decision to sign HB 847 was based on SAFE BOATING and had nothing to do with any one individual boat accident.
safe boating? actually this bill has nothing to do with safe boating. there hasn't been any accidents during the day linked to speed. and all the ones where people we.re going fast were alcohol related. Lynch signed it because senate passed it. Lynch doesn't experience this lake, all he knows is what the media says, and we all know how inaccurate they can be. and when people complain about stupid issues like this speed limit he assumes maybe there is a problem. I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can. its funny how he claims to be cutting government spending and now hes going to invest into this nonsense
flyry49 is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 10:23 PM   #42
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyry49 View Post
I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can.
As will I in November
EricP is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 10:31 PM   #43
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyry49 View Post
safe boating? actually this bill has nothing to do with safe boating. there hasn't been any accidents during the day linked to speed. and all the ones where people we.re going fast were alcohol related.
Except that isn't true is it.

There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol. You people keep repeating these lies over and over til you believe them yourself.
Islander is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 10:44 PM   #44
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
Except that isn't true is it.

There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol. You people keep repeating these lies over and over til you believe them yourself.
So 1 accident requires a law? Ridiculous....You people will never get it. There is no problem on the lake with speed. There are zillions of problems with safe passage violations. And accusing people of lying is insulting.

The Govenor needs to go, he probably hasn't been on the lake much and if he took the time to do that he'd know there's no speeding problem. I can't be represented by lazy people. He was either too lazy to see for himself or to lazy to check facts. Plus he's easily swayed by fear mongerers, not a quality I want in a leader.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:43 AM   #45
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 EricP View Post
So 1 accident requires a law? Ridiculous....You people will never get it. There is no problem on the lake with speed. There are zillions of problems with safe passage violations. And accusing people of lying is insulting.

The Govenor needs to go, he probably hasn't been on the lake much and if he took the time to do that he'd know there's no speeding problem. I can't be represented by lazy people. He was either too lazy to see for himself or to lazy to check facts. Plus he's easily swayed by fear mongerers, not a quality I want in a leader.
You may think the Governor needs to go because he signed the speed limit bill. But are you aware that your only alternative is Joe Kenney, one of the co-sponsors of the speed limit bill? This legislation had wide support, except on this forum.

Perhaps you are the one that will never get it. Yesterday the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested.

Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."

Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 09:17 AM   #46
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
Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.
Ya,we wouldn't want any thrill-seeking would we?Like thrillseeking on a rocket ride perhaps?
__________________
SIKSUKR

Last edited by SIKSUKR; 07-09-2008 at 10:11 AM.
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 09:54 AM   #47
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."

Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.
"Thrill Seeking Boaters" have the same rights to enjoy the lake as do family boaters, kayaks, canoes, swimmers, and sailboats. Unless, of course, your agenda is to get them off the lake....
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 10:44 AM   #48
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Ya,we wouldn't want any thrill-seeking would we?Like thrillseeking on a rocket ride perhaps?
There is a time and a place for thrill-seeking. When the thrill-seeking of a minority causes children's camps to cancel activities, or when familes are afraid to go out on the water, then its time for a new law. And now we have one.
Islander is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 10:57 AM   #49
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 Ryan View Post
"Thrill Seeking Boaters" have the same rights to enjoy the lake as do family boaters, kayaks, canoes, swimmers, and sailboats. Unless, of course, your agenda is to get them off the lake....
Here is where we disagree completely. In my opinion thrill-seekers do NOT have the same rights to enjoy the lake. When their trill-seeking negatively effects other people using the lake, then it is time for them to go. Or at least have their activities limited.

Yes, it is my agenda to get them off the lake and I have never hidden that agenda.

HB847 was a good step in that direction.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 11:04 AM   #50
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 may think the Governor needs to go because he signed the speed limit bill. But are you aware that your only alternative is Joe Kenney, one of the co-sponsors of the speed limit bill? This legislation had wide support, except on this forum.

Perhaps you are the one that will never get it. Yesterday the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested.

Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."

Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.
If that's how it is, about 75% of all posts on speed limits would have vanished. The debate could have been focused on the real problems, congestion and the ability of the MP to enforce the real laws. I seriously doubt the new law will eliminate many of the boats. Sure, some percentage of the GF boats will dissapear. But the majority of the reckless tubers, PWC's, and whatever other boats that routinely ignore the 150' rule will still be there. Generally speaking, the law doesn't impact them most of the time. You really should hope that gas prices remain high, which will have the single biggest impact on lake congestion.

If only people could have been honest in this entire debate. Common ground is in abundance over most of the major problems with safety. You yourself mention many, the NWZ violations being just one aspect. Lake congestion is, and always has been, a major problem on weekends. What makes it a safety issue has been obvious to most people in this debate. But as always, it hard to come up with solutions if the debate itself is disingenuous. I feel it has been, and many of your own comments post-passage have only proven it.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 11:12 AM   #51
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
There is a time and a place for thrill-seeking. When the thrill-seeking of a minority causes children's camps to cancel activities, or when familes are afraid to go out on the water, then its time for a new law. And now we have one.
Your fear mongering isn't going to sway my opinion. The laws that are currently in place cover all of the above concerns. There is no reason why any boater cannot travel through the Broads on a Tuesday Morning in May at 55mph.
It's also very strange that any time somebody has opposing views with BI, you find the need to toss your opinion grenades in support. I'm pretty sure BI can interject without a puppet chiming in...
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 11:23 AM   #52
watrskir
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 37
Thanks: 33
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
As will I in November

I already started the campain
watrskir is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 12:34 PM   #53
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 Ryan View Post
Your fear mongering isn't going to sway my opinion. The laws that are currently in place cover all of the above concerns. There is no reason why any boater cannot travel through the Broads on a Tuesday Morning in May at 55mph.
High speeds and "thrill seeking" have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by small, slow-moving boats. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on any NH lake.

The Broads are not as open and large as many here seem to suggest. One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually stated at the Senate Session that the lake was so large that you can't see land from out in the middle of it. Talk about being totally uninformed!

In reality there's only about 2 square miles of the entire lake that is more than a mile from a shore.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:00 PM   #54
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
So 1 accident requires a law? Ridiculous....You people will never get it. There is no problem on the lake with speed. There are zillions of problems with safe passage violations. And accusing people of lying is insulting.

The Govenor needs to go, he probably hasn't been on the lake much and if he took the time to do that he'd know there's no speeding problem. I can't be represented by lazy people. He was either too lazy to see for himself or to lazy to check facts. Plus he's easily swayed by fear mongerers, not a quality I want in a leader.
Lazy? Go to his web site and check out his bio...hospital boards, youth sports, president of a company, active in UNH alumni. This seemed like a good time for a repost of a story by tupelo from a few weeks ago.

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:07 PM   #55
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 701
Blog Entries: 9
Thanks: 39
Thanked 144 Times in 61 Posts
Default Interesting up to this part.

"after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.
THE END"

This part is all wrong.
WeirsBeachBoater is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:15 PM   #56
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 486
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
High speeds and "thrill seeking" have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by small, slow-moving boats.
Small slow-moving boats have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by powerboats.

How many times do you want to go around with this dance? Every one of your illogical points can be met with a similarly illogical counter-point.

Quote:
In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on any NH lake.
And that's a wonderful opinion. Of course "unlimited" speeds are not allowed on the lake to begin with. The fact that some boats may be capable of going faster than you are comfortable with (and may at various times actually EXERCISE this capability) means little.

Quote:
The Broads are not as open and large as many here seem to suggest.
And powerboats are not traveling at "unlimited speeds" and endangering kayakers, as many here seem to suggest.

You've become a pull-string doll, Evenstar. You have about 5 key phrases that just spill out constantly. And all of these phrases revolve around your ill-conceived and limited view of the lake.

I imagine this post will trigger the "WAH! He's attacking me" phrase now.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:23 PM   #57
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 486
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."
Unfortunately the staff at the "Glob" seem to think the world ends at the last T stop. I would consider their opinions entertaining, but not necessarily steeped in fact. For example what are the "arcades" they seem to think number in such great quantities that they should be used as one of the core descriptions of the area? You've got Funspot and what else?

In my visits to the lake before buying a place in Laconia, and time spent thereafter, never once did I hear Winnipesauke primarily described as a place for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, or fireworks.

Using that sentence as support for a position is no better than "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true".
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:23 PM   #58
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
High speeds and "thrill seeking" have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by small, slow-moving boats. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on any NH lake.
Why not? We can't share? 'Winni Cowboys' travelling at ludicrous speed have the same rights to enjoy their form of boating as you...no?

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:36 PM   #59
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 brk-lnt View Post
Small slow-moving boats have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by powerboats.
Our state law happens to supports my "illogical point":

New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states: “In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

Quote:
And that's a wonderful opinion. Of course "unlimited" speeds are not allowed on the lake to begin with. The fact that some boats may be capable of going faster than you are comfortable with (and may at various times actually EXERCISE this capability) means little.
No speed limit = unlimited speeds (which is apparently another one of my "illogical points".)

Quote:
And powerboats are not traveling at "unlimited speeds" and endangering kayakers, as many here seem to suggest.
Yes they are. I've testified about being endangered and so have many others (and my best friend was a witness to us being endangered several times on winni). Try taking a kayak out on the main lake sometime and see how safe you feel from the high speed boaters.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 02:13 PM   #60
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:
Orignally posted by FFL
Wow....Airwaves....talk about being a regular Perry Mason! Without a doubt, the Governor's decision to sign HB 847 was based on SAFE BOATING and had nothing to do with any one individual boat accident.
We've posted this ad naseum, this bill has nothing to do with safety, it's not even funded.
Quote:
Originally posted by flyry49
I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can. its funny how he claims to be cutting government spending and now hes going to invest into this nonsense
The way I look at his signature on this bill is purely political. His opponent was a co-sponsor of the bill, Lynch may have been persuaded to veto it right up until the Diamond Island accident. At that point he was politically bound to sign it in order to take a campaign issue away from Joe Kenney who would have undoubtedly fear mongered in exactly the same way as the bulk of supporters did, and portray Lynch as responsible! Lynch's comments to the contrary are polictical bull crap.
Quote:
Originally posted by Islander
There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol.
Could you refresh my memory on that one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander
Yesterday the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested.
Yesterday was a Tuesday? You only consider Wednesday mid-week? So what is changing?
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander
Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons,
That would be the article on how the super rich are buying up the summer cottages and building mansions along the lakefront and how the economic downturn isn't impacting the buyer that can afford it? Don't think they are going to be bringing boats with them for their 8,000 to 22,000 sq ft cottages?
Quote:
Originally posted by VtSteve
But the majority of the reckless tubers, PWC's, and whatever other boats that routinely ignore the 150' rule will still be there. Generally speaking, the law doesn't impact them most of the time. You really should hope that gas prices remain high, which will have the single biggest impact on lake congestion.
That was, is, and shall remain the problem and it won't change at all because of this FEEL GOOD LAW! You're also correct that the biggest immediate impact on lake congestion will be gasoline prices, not this new law.
Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually stated at the Senate Session that the lake was so large that you can't see land from out in the middle of it. Talk about being totally uninformed!
I know that when I stand at the end of my dock, looking out of Saunders Bay I can't see the other side of the lake. That is probably what your Republican Senator friend was actually trying to say.
Quote:
Originally posted by brk-int
Using that sentence as support for a position is no better than "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true".
You mean because I read it on the internet it isn't necessarily true?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 02:29 PM   #61
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 Airwaves View Post
Could you refresh my memory on that one?
I think Islander is talking about the fatal jet ski accident, where an underage kid that should not have been on the machine in the first place died. An accident that has nothing to do with the speed limit. The machine in the accident was not capable of excessive speeds. I don't believe that they ever came up with an official cause, the machine was still intact. I think it was drowning in the end.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...040308/-1/news

Bad parenting was the cause, not speed. The kid should not have been out on it alone, ultimately the parents fault for making the machine accessible.

I am sure someone will flame away, but that is my synopsis.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 02:30 PM   #62
twoplustwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 456
Thanks: 51
Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts
Default

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.



Substitute elitism for safety, and you'd be right.

Yup, the only bad thing that ever happens on Squam is one of us manages the Where's Waldo search for a parking spot at the elusive and much fought over public boat launch and makes it onto their lake. Unless we have the right boat, the right clothes, and no one is silly enough to hop off the boat, take a swim and *gasp* have fun, you have to deal with the Preppy Handbook matrons looking down their sunglasses and their noses to let you know "We put a beach on High Haith for YOU people!" Makes me glad to be one of you people.

I'm all for safety, and think everyone should use the lake courteously be they on a boat, PWC, or on a beach somewhere. I just hope the cries of safety don't continue to shroud that Squammy elitism oozing out of some of 'those people' on Winni.
twoplustwo is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 02:36 PM   #63
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 486
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
[COLOR=black]

Yes they are. I've testified about being endangered and so have many others (and my best friend was a witness to us being endangered several times on winni). Try taking a kayak out on the main lake sometime and see how safe you feel from the high speed boaters.
I'm aware that you and your friend have testified about your own perception of endangerment.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 02:40 PM   #64
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplustwo View Post
A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.



Substitute elitism for safety, and you'd be right.

Yup, the only bad thing that ever happens on Squam is one of us manages the Where's Waldo search for a parking spot at the elusive and much fought over public boat launch and makes it onto their lake. Unless we have the right boat, the right clothes, and no one is silly enough to hop off the boat, take a swim and *gasp* have fun, you have to deal with the Preppy Handbook matrons looking down their sunglasses and their noses to let you know "We put a beach on High Haith for YOU people!" Makes me glad to be one of you people.

I'm all for safety, and think everyone should use the lake courteously be they on a boat, PWC, or on a beach somewhere. I just hope the cries of safety don't continue to shroud that Squammy elitism oozing out of some of 'those people' on Winni.
I once overheard a story in a forum about a Kayaker that was swamped on Squam by a POWERBOAT
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 03:24 PM   #65
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
I think Islander is talking about the fatal jet ski accident, where an underage kid that should not have been on the machine in the first place died. An accident that has nothing to do with the speed limit. The machine in the accident was not capable of excessive speeds. I don't believe that they ever came up with an official cause, the machine was still intact. I think it was drowning in the end.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...040308/-1/news

Bad parenting was the cause, not speed. The kid should not have been out on it alone, ultimately the parents fault for making the machine accessible.

I am sure someone will flame away, but that is my synopsis.
I think the supporters of the bill have tunnel vision. Each and every accident that has occured on Lake Winni was about speed in their minds. What will they blame it on when accidents still happen with the speed limit? On another note Bear Islander are you suggesting in your comment about the BI camp having sail boats out yesterday that the reason was becasue of the passage of the speed limit bill? I don't want to read into anything you're not saying so I'm simply asking if that's what you meant. Thank you!
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 03:52 PM   #66
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
You may think the Governor needs to go because he signed the speed limit bill. But are you aware that your only alternative is Joe Kenney, one of the co-sponsors of the speed limit bill? This legislation had wide support, except on this forum.

Perhaps you are the one that will never get it. Yesterday the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested.

Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."

Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.
The only thing I realize is you have an agenda, you are entitiled to have an agenda and I am glad you only get 1 vote. I to only get 1 vote, I have no agenda, I don't like stupid , needless laws. Nothing you say or do will ever convince me that a speed limit law will do anything to change the lake, it won't even help your agenda of returning the lake to the days of yesteryear, it just won't happen. Nothing I say will change your agenda, stalemate. However, as the population grows so will the number of people on the lake and my bets are that enforcing the laws already on the books will produce more safety results than this new law that isn't on the books till 1/1/09.

As for the kids camps, if I were responsible for the lives and safety of those kids I would find things to do on the weekends that don't involve venturing out onto the lake and save those events for Monday-Thursday or even Friday AM. Don't most camp cycles run Sunday - Saturday anyway? So basically between kids coming and going on those 2 weekend days it makes sense to keep them close at hand anyway. It's not rocket surgery, and the kids will never feel like they are missing anything if the events are scheduled consistently on weekedays. There's more to camping than just the lake, and they should have events to keep them occupied as such.

The Boston Globe article? I could care less, the media can't be trusted anyway so citing articles in rags I could care less about mean nothing to me.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 04:11 PM   #67
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default I'll Miss the Show

I have no personal stake in this debate as i do not own a fast boat. My only comment is that I will miss seeing the ocassional really really GF boats make its way from near the Center Harbor Docks to One Mile in less than a minute. It was usually early morning or early evening, no traffic, calm water. I wouldn't want to have it going on all the time, nor when there were other boats in the harbor. But hey, I guess that's why the guys or gals that drove these GFB picked the times they did to open them up, it was safe.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 05:50 PM   #68
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

EricP..that's a very good point about the camps. My son is currently at flight camp and they take the campers up at the beginning of the week rather than later on in the week because air traffic is typically lighter then. I'm very pleased that the camp director has my child's best interest at heart.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 05:52 PM   #69
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 EricP View Post
The only thing I realize is you have an agenda, you are entitiled to have an agenda and I am glad you only get 1 vote. I to only get 1 vote, I have no agenda, I don't like stupid , needless laws. Nothing you say or do will ever convince me that a speed limit law will do anything to change the lake, it won't even help your agenda of returning the lake to the days of yesteryear, it just won't happen. Nothing I say will change your agenda, stalemate. However, as the population grows so will the number of people on the lake and my bets are that enforcing the laws already on the books will produce more safety results than this new law that isn't on the books till 1/1/09.

As for the kids camps, if I were responsible for the lives and safety of those kids I would find things to do on the weekends that don't involve venturing out onto the lake and save those events for Monday-Thursday or even Friday AM. Don't most camp cycles run Sunday - Saturday anyway? So basically between kids coming and going on those 2 weekend days it makes sense to keep them close at hand anyway. It's not rocket surgery, and the kids will never feel like they are missing anything if the events are scheduled consistently on weekdays. There's more to camping than just the lake, and they should have events to keep them occupied as such.

The Boston Globe article? I could care less, the media can't be trusted anyway so citing articles in rags I could care less about mean nothing to me.
The situation with camps is not a "stalemate" as you suggest. The speed limit bill is law. That is more link "checkmate".

As a former camp director I can tell you it doesn't work the way you assume. The camps on our island have two week terms, however many children stay for multiple terms or the entire summer. There are already many days in which small sailboats can't go out. Days that are calm or very windy or raining are already out. Plus days when thunderstorms are in the area. Now you want to add three or fours days a week because the lake is out of control on weekends? I don't think so!

However none of this is to the point. If a lake is so crowded with "thrill-seeker" that it is not safe for children in a small boat then something has to change. And that change is the thrill-seekers have to go. If you think lake camps with a total of thousands of children should keep those children on shore because you want to go faster than 45 mph, then you are correct, we will never agree on speed limits.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 06:04 PM   #70
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Just for perspective I was curious about the statement that there are only a couple of square miles that are more than a mile from the shore. I was a bit surprised to see that this is actually a true statement.

Out of curiosity I ran the calculation with only 17 boat spacings from shore. 17 boats could pass in a half mile and I wanted to see how much this would change the two square mile statistic.

The attached drawing shows that it has a rather large impact if you count the square miles that are a half mile from shore. I estimate about 12+/- square miles. I have also included the length of two 5 minute rides at 60 miles per hour to show how big the lake can be.

It is fortunate that we are blessed to have a lake with so many areas that are not ideal to fast boats and still have such open areas where fast boats can roam. Both sharing the lake.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:58 PM   #71
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
The Broads are not as open and large as many here seem to suggest. One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually stated at the Senate Session that the lake was so large that you can't see land from out in the middle of it. Talk about being totally uninformed!
Yeah, right...

So, the next time you're in the middle of the Broads off RG's place on Rattlesnake Island, wave to Canus on Black Cat Island and see if you can see him return your wave.

Yeah, right...
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 09:50 PM   #72
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
The situation with camps is not a "stalemate" as you suggest. The speed limit bill is law. That is more link "checkmate".

As a former camp director I can tell you it doesn't work the way you assume. The camps on our island have two week terms, however many children stay for multiple terms or the entire summer. There are already many days in which small sailboats can't go out. Days that are calm or very windy or raining are already out. Plus days when thunderstorms are in the area. Now you want to add three or fours days a week because the lake is out of control on weekends? I don't think so!

However none of this is to the point. If a lake is so crowded with "thrill-seeker" that it is not safe for children in a small boat then something has to change. And that change is the thrill-seekers have to go. If you think lake camps with a total of thousands of children should keep those children on shore because you want to go faster than 45 mph, then you are correct, we will never agree on speed limits.
It can work just fine, you just don't like it. [edit]And excuse me but when did Saturday and Sunday turn into 3 or 4 days? Talk about spin! I suggested keeping them close to the camps on the weekend plus maybe Friday afternoon, that's 2.5 days at best 3 if you strecth it to all day Friday as well, but never 4 days. You know for a fact that the lake is not busy during the week, even at your NWZ, so there's no rerason they can't find enough to do for 5 days when it's not busy.[/edit] There's no checkmate as I was referring to our differing opinions, not a chess match of who got their way. There are plenty of nice boating days during the week that would work for the camps. There are also plenty of activities that don't involve boating they could do as well. The lake is not crowded with "thrill-seekers", it's crowded with boats.

There are more boats on the lake now than there was 10 years ago and in 10 years there will be more than there is now. Speed limits won't change that, enforcing safe passage laws will do more for safety 10 years from now than a speed limit law. You want to live on the lake as it existed in the past, it can't happen and never will.

Can you imagine 100 or so years ago someone was out on the lake in a canoe and saw their first motor boat go screeming by at 15 MPH, I'm sure that caused quite a stir as well back then. Times change, we can't stop that and making the wrong decisions today will just make it worse later. If we enacted a law every time someone complained about something they didn't like nothing would ever be better. It already happens to much as it is but that's a different thread altogether.

I am not the "thrill-seeker" you envision. I enjoy everthing the lake offers. I get a thrill riding my jetskis and get the same thrill kayaking around and seeing all the wildlife that frequents our lake, or just sitting on shore relaxing looking out over the lake and taking in all that beauty. I am just against people imposing their will on me when it doesn't make sense or is just plain wrong. I do the same thing at work, I force policies to be reviewed because things change and so should policies, etc..

Anyway, point being the speed limit law, In my Opinion, is dumb.

Last edited by EricP; 07-09-2008 at 11:02 PM. Reason: fixed the 4 day math problem
EricP is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 10:09 PM   #73
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
The situation with camps is not a "stalemate" as you suggest. The speed limit bill is law. That is more link "checkmate".

As a former camp director I can tell you it doesn't work the way you assume. The camps on our island have two week terms, however many children stay for multiple terms or the entire summer. There are already many days in which small sailboats can't go out. Days that are calm or very windy or raining are already out. Plus days when thunderstorms are in the area. Now you want to add three or fours days a week because the lake is out of control on weekends? I don't think so!

However none of this is to the point. If a lake is so crowded with "thrill-seeker" that it is not safe for children in a small boat then something has to change. And that change is the thrill-seekers have to go. If you think lake camps with a total of thousands of children should keep those children on shore because you want to go faster than 45 mph, then you are correct, we will never agree on speed limits.
I thought this wasn't about safety or speed limits but congestion? Color me confused again.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 10:23 AM   #74
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
If a lake is so crowded with "thrill-seeker" that it is not safe for children in a small boat then something has to change. And that change is the thrill-seekers have to go.
Exactly how many "thrill seeking" boats are on the lake causing this 'congestion' you speak of?

From what I've observed, they are the minority of the population on the lake, somewhere behind bowriders, cabin cruisers, bass boats, sailboats, jet skis, kayaks, canoes and floating trampolines.

Going back to my observations from my earlier post, with little or no MP presence during the busiest of boating weekends (last weekend), HB 847 is going to be extremely difficult to enforce and not the solution the SL crowd is looking for.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 11:14 AM   #75
parrothead
Senior Member
 
parrothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Bear Island Camps

A no wake zone near the camps will alleviate some issues, but not all. And I'm not 100% sure that it would make the directors anymore likely to send kids out on weekends. As I stated before one of the reasons that the boating programs were stopped on weekends, was because the kids didn't enjoy the activities due to congestion (ie too many wakes). Both camps are in a pretty busy part of the lake, and there is a lot of wave activity around both boating beaches (Lawrence and Noko). The Lawrence boating beach is actually pretty protected as it stands right now. Most boats go out around Dollar Island instead of in between. And if a NWZ was put in place that area would be the most logical. But the boats going out around Dollar still provide enough waves to make it pretty rough near the boating beach. Water skiing either in front of Noko or on the Mark Island side of Lawrence was not fun for the campers. They would stand up and then hold on for dear life as they bounce over waves. Where Lawrence skis is even somewhat protected because not many boats curl back towards Bear after they clear the markers in front of Mark. They instead continue on to go around the end of Bear. Those boats as well as the boats passing between Meredith Neck and Bear, heading by Cattle landing, make enough wakes to make it rough for skiing. The way I see it the only way to make it possible for kids to use the Lake 100% of the time is to limit Lake access. On weekends we only allow X number of boats to be moving on the lake at one time. Maybe there could be a deli number system? There is a VHF channel with someone calling numbers and everyone within a certain range of numbers can move and everyone else has to stop. :-) Just an idea
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane
parrothead is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 09:02 PM   #76
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parrothead View Post
A no wake zone near the camps will alleviate some issues, but not all. And I'm not 100% sure that it would make the directors anymore likely to send kids out on weekends. As I stated before one of the reasons that the boating programs were stopped on weekends, was because the kids didn't enjoy the activities due to congestion (ie too many wakes). Both camps are in a pretty busy part of the lake, and there is a lot of wave activity around both boating beaches (Lawrence and Noko). The Lawrence boating beach is actually pretty protected as it stands right now. Most boats go out around Dollar Island instead of in between. And if a NWZ was put in place that area would be the most logical. But the boats going out around Dollar still provide enough waves to make it pretty rough near the boating beach. Water skiing either in front of Noko or on the Mark Island side of Lawrence was not fun for the campers. They would stand up and then hold on for dear life as they bounce over waves. Where Lawrence skis is even somewhat protected because not many boats curl back towards Bear after they clear the markers in front of Mark. They instead continue on to go around the end of Bear. Those boats as well as the boats passing between Meredith Neck and Bear, heading by Cattle landing, make enough wakes to make it rough for skiing. The way I see it the only way to make it possible for kids to use the Lake 100% of the time is to limit Lake access. On weekends we only allow X number of boats to be moving on the lake at one time. Maybe there could be a deli number system? There is a VHF channel with someone calling numbers and everyone within a certain range of numbers can move and everyone else has to stop. :-) Just an idea
So basically a speed limit won't help either camp on the weekends. There will still be plenty of boats and wakes. Fear was created using the camps for affect to pass a law that offers no hope of removing the "fear" they created. Lovely.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 09:27 PM   #77
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 EricP
So basically a speed limit won't help either camp on the weekends. There will still be plenty of boats and wakes. Fear was created using the camps for affect to pass a law that offers no hope of removing the "fear" they created. Lovely.
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Bear Islander's observation that camp children were enjoying the lake for the first time on a Tuesday versus Mid-Week?

I'm still waiting for the outline of the 47 speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 as well.

BI? IG? Anyone?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 09:32 AM   #78
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 Airwaves View Post
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Bear Islander's observation that camp children were enjoying the lake for the first time on a Tuesday versus Mid-Week?

I'm still waiting for the outline of the 47 speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 as well.

BI? IG? Anyone?
You should read more carefully

"Yesterday (Tuesday) the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested."

Clearly I am talking about Tuesday as being "mid-week".

And I checked the accident list. I found 44 accidents involving speed. I might have missed three. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. This time use a dictionary definition of speed, rather than your personal definition.

Who is IG? Island Girl?
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 09:42 AM   #79
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
You should read more carefully

"Yesterday (Tuesday) the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested."

Clearly I am talking about Tuesday as being "mid-week".

And I checked the accident list. I found 44 accidents involving speed. I might have missed three. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. This time use a dictionary definition of speed, rather than your personal definition.

Who is IG? Island Girl?
Of those 44 accidents involving speed. How many were at or above 45 MPH? It's one thing to say "speed was a factor" but that may not mean the new law would have applied. Again 10 MPH within 150' of anything and causing an accident would mean "speed was a factor" but that would not mean HB847 would apply. I would like to see this list, maybe there's been a link and I've missed it, but I think there would be a botatload (pun intended) of activity here if in fact there were that many accidents over 45 MPH! I am thrwoing a flag on your citing of 44 accidents and tying them into HB847 unless you can show me they were all over HB847 limits.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 11:06 AM   #80
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 EricP View Post
Of those 44 accidents involving speed. How many were at or above 45 MPH? It's one thing to say "speed was a factor" but that may not mean the new law would have applied. Again 10 MPH within 150' of anything and causing an accident would mean "speed was a factor" but that would not mean HB847 would apply. I would like to see this list, maybe there's been a link and I've missed it, but I think there would be a botatload (pun intended) of activity here if in fact there were that many accidents over 45 MPH! I am thrwoing a flag on your citing of 44 accidents and tying them into HB847 unless you can show me they were all over HB847 limits.
Who said anything about HB847 limits?

Airwaves has some point to make about the 2006 statistics. He asks how many involved speed. The problem, like I said, is that he is using his own definition of speed. If he wants to know how many involved speeds over 25/45, then that is a different answer.

He knows all this very well, he is trying to make some kind of point that escapes me. However I have answered his question as asked.

He also has claimed that ALL accidents have a speed listed by number which they clearly do not. I don't think there is a link to this data. Only a synopsis put together by Woodsy.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 02:53 PM   #81
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 Bear Islander
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Bear Islander's observation that camp children were enjoying the lake for the first time on a Tuesday versus Mid-Week?

I'm still waiting for the outline of the 47 speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 as well.

BI? IG? Anyone?
You should read more carefully

"Yesterday (Tuesday) the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested."

Clearly I am talking about Tuesday as being "mid-week".

And I checked the accident list. I found 44 accidents involving speed. I might have missed three. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. This time use a dictionary definition of speed, rather than your personal definition.

Who is IG? Island Girl?
I did read carefully you wrote, bold is mine but the words are yours:
Quote:
"Yesterday (Tuesday) the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested."
So you don't see boys and girls camps on islands sailing on Tuesday very often because that can only happen mid-week. Not a very clear statement at all if you are trying to say Tuesday is also mid-week because that is not what you stated at all.

Perhaps I didn't correctly recall the number of accidents you folks claimed occurred involving speed since it was soooo long ago that I posted a link to the 2006 NH stats provided by Woodsy. I could have made a mistake that you had said 44 instead of 47...okay, it's 44 involving speed? I believe the stats are on an exel file so you can supply the line numbers that would be interesting to read.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander
Who said anything about HB847 limits?

Airwaves has some point to make about the 2006 statistics. He asks how many involved speed. The problem, like I said, is that he is using his own definition of speed. If he wants to know how many involved speeds over 25/45, then that is a different answer.
Actually I clearly defined speed in my original question when I brought it up in another thread as the 45/25 speed that you and others were supporting. As you may remember, or maybe you don't remember since you folks ignored it when it was still a relevant debate, I was responding to a Business Journal article posted by YOU that claimed 2006 was a very dangerous year on NH waterways.

You named the thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents"

I looked at the stats for that same year quoted in your article and challenged their and your conclusions. I clearly spelled that out. As usual if the stats don't support your position you try to muddy the waters.

Quote:
he is trying to make some kind of point that escapes me. However I have answered his question as asked.
I guess it was such a long time ago you just forgot.

Quote:
He also has claimed that ALL accidents have a speed listed by number which they clearly do not. I don't think there is a link to this data. Only a synopsis put together by Woodsy.
Of course you still have not given us the line numbers of the 44 speed related accidents that you claim to have found even if ALL the accidents don't have speed listed next to them. Why not? The data doesn't support your opinion so it must be flawed because Woodsy linked it.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 03:16 PM   #82
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 Airwaves View Post
I did read carefully you wrote, bold is mine but the words are yours:

So you don't see boys and girls camps on islands sailing on Tuesday very often because that can only happen mid-week. Not a very clear statement at all if you are trying to say Tuesday is also mid-week because that is not what you stated at all.

Perhaps I didn't correctly recall the number of accidents you folks claimed occurred involving speed since it was soooo long ago that I posted a link to the 2006 NH stats provided by Woodsy. I could have made a mistake that you had said 44 instead of 47...okay, it's 44 involving speed? I believe the stats are on an exel file so you can supply the line numbers that would be interesting to read.

Actually I clearly defined speed in my original question when I brought it up in another thread as the 45/25 speed that you and others were supporting. As you may remember, or maybe you don't remember since you folks ignored it when it was still a relevant debate, I was responding to a Business Journal article posted by YOU that claimed 2006 was a very dangerous year on NH waterways.

You named the thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents"

I looked at the stats for that same year quoted in your article and challenged their and your conclusions. I clearly spelled that out. As usual if the stats don't support your position you try to muddy the waters.


I guess it was such a long time ago you just forgot.


Of course you still have not given us the line numbers of the 44 speed related accidents that you claim to have found even if ALL the accidents don't have speed listed next to them. Why not? The data doesn't support your opinion so it must be flawed because Woodsy linked it.
It seems you just want to argue.

My definition of mid-week is Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I guess your definition is only Wednesday. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Another mountain you wish to make out of a mole hill.

I count 44 accidents that involve a speed. Count them anyway you wish. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

I am finished with this crazy argument. Please stop posting that nobody will answer your questions. I tried to answer you, but you keep not understanding and throwing more mud on the problem. You don't want answers, you want HB847 repealed.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 04:34 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 Bear IslanderIt seems you just want to argue.

My definition of mid-week is Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I guess your definition is only Wednesday. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Another mountain you wish to make out of a mole hill.

I count 44 accidents that involve a speed. Count them anyway you wish. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

I am finished with this crazy argument. Please stop posting that nobody will answer your questions. I tried to answer you, but you keep not understanding and throwing more mud on the problem. You don't want answers, you want HB847 repealed.
Again making statements that apparently were intentionally worded so as to be confused so you can again deny...again making statements that you won't back up. If you've identified 44 speed releated accidents in 2006 then why not share them with us? Could it be because you can't?

What difference does it make? At this point it shows is that instead of directly addressing issues and answering questions all you can do is try to turn things around because you have nothng to back up your statements and choose instead to muddy the water.

Do I want HB847 to suffer a quiet death, yep it's an unnecessary feel good law that in my opinion will make the lake less safe.

When you decide to answer my question directly please let me know and I'd be happy to consider what you say. Until then...

Last edited by Airwaves; 07-13-2008 at 04:39 PM. Reason: clarification
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 06:05 PM   #84
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Who said anything about HB847 limits?

Airwaves has some point to make about the 2006 statistics. He asks how many involved speed. The problem, like I said, is that he is using his own definition of speed. If he wants to know how many involved speeds over 25/45, then that is a different answer.

He knows all this very well, he is trying to make some kind of point that escapes me. However I have answered his question as asked.

He also has claimed that ALL accidents have a speed listed by number which they clearly do not. I don't think there is a link to this data. Only a synopsis put together by Woodsy.
Personally I think you are splitting hairs here. Airwaves probably meant how many accidents involved speed in excess of HB847 limits. Because he didn't spell that out you answer 44 accidents involve speed. So now let's go one further because Airwaves missed that and determine how many of those were in excess of HB847 limits. After all, in the spirit of debating this foolish law, this is after all the real point of it all. So I guess I am mentioning HB847 because it was implied but not spelled out.

If a boat is moving and involved in an accident then speed was involved, it was moving and therfore had some speed assocaited with that movement, anyone will agree with that. Point is HB847 will probably not have had any bearing on most of those accidents. I will not guess how many because I don't know the speed details. But it's my opinion that if there was a significant number of those accidents that actually involved boats traveling at speeds above the limits set in HB847, the Pro crowd would be all over those stats. This leads me to believe that the majority of those accidents did not involved speeds in excess of HB847 limits. This is reasonable logic on my part. So for you to cite 44 accidents in the same veign as an HB847 debate is misleading and irrelevant to the discussion of why we need a speed limit. If HB847 had been in place for all 44 of those accidents most would not have been cited for speeding as a violation of that law.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 08:45 PM   #85
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 EriP
Personally I think you are splitting hairs here. Airwaves probably meant how many accidents involved speed in excess of HB847 limits. Because he didn't spell that out you answer 44 accidents involve speed. So now let's go one further because Airwaves missed that and determine how many of those were in excess of HB847 limits. After all, in the spirit of debating this foolish law, this is after all the real point of it all. So I guess I am mentioning HB847 because it was implied but not spelled out.
Oh, I was very specific and you are quite right, I used THEIR 45/25 speed limit as the benchmark. BI and crew know it and I spelled it out quite clearly in HIS thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents" check it out.

The link to the 2006 NH Boating Statistics provided by Woodsy is in that thread as well as listed under it's own thread so you can check yourself and not take my word for it.

You'll also discover that some of the "accidents" listed appear to have been caused by rafting boats or damage by waves/wakes at the dock. NH requires reporting damage over $2000. That's not much damage and is listed as a "boating accident". I wonder if those are the ones that couldn't attributed to speed? I quess we'll never know.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:19 AM   #86
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Airwaves has been very specific. He is asking about 2006 Winnipesaukee accidents involving speed.

That is the answer he has received.

Airwaves these little games you want to play are over. The Governor signed HB847. You lost. Move on.

In about two years these arguments about statistics might have meaning again. Personally I think your chances of winning in two years is about zero. Let's wait and see. Bye.
Islander is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:39 AM   #87
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 Islander View Post
Airwaves has been very specific. He is asking about 2006 Winnipesaukee accidents involving speed.

That is the answer he has received.

Airwaves these little games you want to play are over. The Governor signed HB847. You lost. Move on.

In about two years these arguments about statistics might have meaning again. Personally I think your chances of winning in two years is about zero. Let's wait and see. Bye.
HB847 will not make the accident rate any lower than it is. Why? Because the baseline is ZERO. I have asked a zillion times on here for yourself, BI or anyone else to post the statistics of accidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25. There was one...the Littlefield incident, which we all know was caused by alcohol.
So how can HB847 improve this? You can't get any less than zero.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 12:54 PM   #88
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
HB847 will not make the accident rate any lower than it is. Why? Because the baseline is ZERO. I have asked a zillion times on here for yourself, BI or anyone else to post the statistics of accidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25. There was one...the Little field incident, which we all know was caused by alcohol.
So how can HB847 improve this? You can't get any less than zero.
WOW!

Again with the zero accident lie! When you post that you should add all your qualifications, boat on boat, no alcohol, New England only, no other laws broken, fatalities only etc. Plus you should read the stats Airwaves keeps talking about, he has a couple more for you in 2006 alone.

So the high performance boats that flipped they don't count why? The fatal on Winnipesaukee last summer doesn't count why? No alcohol there except I have been told parental error is the excuse to ignore that one. And the Long Lake double fatality how is it we can ignore that one. Not to mention this years fatality.

Does that all add up to zero?

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).
Islander is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:21 PM   #89
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

"Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now)."


Darn the torpedos, full steam ahead!

So no accidents will support your cause, and many accidents will support our cause, and you'll include your silly law just because.

Just think, if all boats were removed from the lake, your wish would be granted. You'd still give credit to HB847.

What a silly nation we have become.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:23 PM   #90
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).
Also we need to wait for the outcome of investigations of the Diamond Is. accident. People on this forum have stated that if the boat is shown to have been going 25 MPH or less, then HB 847 would be of no benefit. On the other hand, if a boat(especially with a very experienced driver) going 25 MPH can cause such massive damage, lower night limits could be appropriate. Many feel that 25 MPH at night was too high a compromise and that limits similar to Squam would have been better.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:45 PM   #91
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I’m tired of being called a liar by the speed limits crowd a group that refuses to back up their barnyard expletive!

Here is the posting from BI’s thread in which I clearly spelled out my criteria for “speed” .....low and behold there is also the number 47 speed related accidents the speed limit crowd says occurred on Winnipesaukee in 2006.

I've bolded my comment on the criteria for speed so that the speed limit crowd doesn't have to look too hard!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6070

In post #5 of that thread you will find a link to the 2006 stats provided by Woodsy.

Anyone feel safe yet?

Quote:
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.
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.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:40 PM   #92
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Why go back to trying and justify speed limits with stats that don't justify your case? It's about congestion, some people don't like that crowd, less boats, erosion, wakes, whatever.

An idiot ran up on another boat at a moderate speed at night and an innocent person was killed. That's unfortunate, and really unfortunate that it happens more than once. The very sad part about it, is that more anti speed limit people fully understand the problem, and want to eliminate it as much as possible. Even sadder, is that many whom I will not name, wouldn't be talking about accidents that don't happen to involve their least favorite boats.

I've read about countless accidents over just the last 2-3 years on this board alone (I researched to see what's going on back then). PWC accidents, swimmers drowning in open water, all kinds of stuff. Not very long threads though.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:34 PM   #93
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 Islander View Post
WOW!

Again with the zero accident lie! When you post that you should add all your qualifications, boat on boat, no alcohol, New England only, no other laws broken, fatalities only etc. Plus you should read the stats Airwaves keeps talking about, he has a couple more for you in 2006 alone.

So the high performance boats that flipped they don't count why? The fatal on Winnipesaukee last summer doesn't count why? No alcohol there except I have been told parental error is the excuse to ignore that one. And the Long Lake double fatality how is it we can ignore that one. Not to mention this years fatality.

Does that all add up to zero?

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).
WOW yourself.
Again I will ask this. Of those accidents you cite, which one was caused by a speed in excess of 45/25? And keep in mind we are discussing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee, not Long Lake.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:42 PM   #94
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
WOW yourself.
Again I will ask this. Of those accidents you cite, which one was caused by a speed in excess of 45/25? And keep in mind we are discussing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee, not Long Lake.
You'll never get a straight answer from Islander. He is too busy gloating over what he feels in a personal victory, rubbing it in as much as he can. I find it better to ignore anything he says and won't respond to his posts. He doesn't get it, never will and isn't worth your time or mine.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 09:00 AM   #95
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
WOW!

Snip

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).
I should know better .....

Perhaps a more likely scenario "might be" that things change very little. A small percentage of boats still go fast in open water. The risk of an accident continues to be present and the rate stays low. (+/- 1) The mater remains one of opinion, perception, emotion and speculation.

Fortunately we don't have a statistic that can be statistically improved. If we had 5, 10 or 20 speed related accidents a year, it would be easy to judge the impact of the pending test. This is not likely to change anyone's position.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 05:35 PM   #96
RTTOOL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Meredith,NH.-Nashua,NH
Posts: 82
Thanks: 78
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default II. The remainder of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

WHAT IS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT..ON THE HB 847. LAW Section 2 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

RTTOOL is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 06:44 PM   #97
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
The attached drawing shows that it has a rather large impact if you count the square miles that are a half mile from shore.
Your drawing took a lot of effort, shows the scope of the problem, and gives better meaning to both sides regarding our respective spaces. I examined it for some time. Thanks for producing it.

Too bad that so many middle-finger confrontations occur outside of "The Playground".

You were overgenerous to the fastest boats, however. Many islands were cut in half, shoals were ignored, and our lake's most recent victim, Diamond Island, nearly disappeared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
An idiot ran up on another boat at a moderate speed at night and an innocent person was killed. That's unfortunate, and really unfortunate that it happens more than once.
You could even say it was a slow speed, since both were traveling in the same direction.

In darkness, Might overcame Right.

Still, we lake dwellers would like to become accustomed to fewer injuries, safer lakeside yards, fewer close calls, fewer deaths, and for being noticed as living, sentient beings while on open waters.

The Governor agrees.
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 08:34 PM   #98
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 247
Thanked 506 Times in 176 Posts
Post Repeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTTOOL View Post
WHAT IS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT..ON THE HB 847. LAW Section 2 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.


(Section 2) 331:2 Repeal. RSA 270-D:2, X-XI, relative to speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, is repealed.

With no other action being taken beforehand, on 1/1/2011 the speed limits on Winni and the requirement that all violations under this section be reported to DMV will be repealed....This is what is known in the trade as a "sunset clause".

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 04:42 PM   #99
John A. Birdsall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Default seat belts

You know, after reading the line of dribble in this thread I think the only thing that makes any sense is that Jet-Skies should have a law that requires them to wear seatbelts. Yup lets get that into law, oh yes waterproof helmets as well.
John A. Birdsall is offline  
Old 07-21-2008, 07:59 PM   #100
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,233
Thanks: 402
Thanked 459 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Hey Birdsall: I completely agree..however, I think a "Roll Cage" should be mandated as well. Remember a couple of decades ago when "WhatsHerFace"...I apologize for not remembering her name..suggested the same for motorcycles? WHO WAS That? She is still around. NoBozo
NoBozo 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 10:21 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.43916 seconds