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 07-05-2008, 10:28 AM   #1
rick35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bear Island/Merrimack
Posts: 562
Thanks: 29
Thanked 116 Times in 69 Posts
Default Sound travels at night

Sometime after midnight (wife says close to 1am) I was awakened from a sound sleep by the roar of a very loud boat passing between Bear and Mark at full throttle. I have to say it was very unsettling and in that first waking moment all I could think of was is this guy going to crash into my camp. I kept listening for the crash until after he was gone. It was that loud.

We have always taught our kids that we need to be more quiet at night when sound carries and to be respectful of our neighbors. Apparently other parents didn't share that idea with their children. That doesn't even take into consideration what happened on Diamond Island a few weeks ago. That thought was very much in my mind until the boat was past.

Some people don't get it and never will.
rick35 is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 12:08 PM   #2
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 rick35 View Post
Sometime after midnight (wife says close to 1am) I was awakened from a sound sleep by the roar of a very loud boat passing between Bear and Mark at full throttle. I have to say it was very unsettling and in that first waking moment all I could think of was is this guy going to crash into my camp. I kept listening for the crash until after he was gone. It was that loud.

We have always taught our kids that we need to be more quiet at night when sound carries and to be respectful of our neighbors. Apparently other parents didn't share that idea with their children. That doesn't even take into consideration what happened on Diamond Island a few weeks ago. That thought was very much in my mind until the boat was past.

Some people don't get it and never will.
There are no laws on the books saying boats can't travel at night but I'm sure that's on someone's agenda. There are noise and decible laws however. Consider yourself lucky if this is the first time you've been woken up at night by a boat. With the new law going into effect it's going to take twice as long for that boat to go by your camp, yay!! As H20 fronters we're all vulnerable to boats smashing into our shores, yards, camps however the chance of that happening is relatively low. You're in more danger driving up to your camp on a Friday in the summer. My husband and I run a fan in our bedroom at night, the white noise usually blocks our neighbors who's favorite time of day to be noisy is usually any time after 11 pm. Try this it might work. I agree some people don't get it and never will. Do what you can within the boundaries of the law and maybe some accomodations within your own home can help the situation. Good Luck!!
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 12:20 PM   #3
wildwoodfam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Andover, MA & summers up at the BIG lake
Posts: 285
Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Wink Have to agree with KC on this one....

Lakefront has its privileges and its drawbacks - though the drawbacks are VERY few in comparison. One is noises on the lake late night. If this is the first time you've been awakened then consider yourself lucky - or maybe this is your first season, in that case get used to it! Not everyone takes into account how their actions directly or indirectly impact others - thats reality. Noise machines, an airconditioner, or fan (like KC said), work best at masking the sounds of the lake. I am sure there are those who will argue and say that somehow it is within their rights to not be disturbed...and I am not disagreeing with you, only trying to offer a suggestion if our friend is a light sleeper.

I prefer the sounds of the lake over a fan, ac or anything - and on occassion, will be jarred out of bed by the sounds of a large boat with a noisy engine. (AGENDA??) Nope, I wish my 20 foot runabout had the capability of noises like the bigger guys but in reality it doesn come close - though it would sure enable me to get back at my neighors every now and then...although I must admit having an infant in the camp during the summer - windows wide open and baby screaming at 4 or 5am sometimes just makes me smile, knowing the neighbors have probably just hit REM4 and were jarred awake! And at 5am - since I am up with the babies - I get in my boat with the baby and head off to get my cup a joe and morning news! Sorry if the dog barks incessantly as I leave her on the dock...that would drive me crazy!!
wildwoodfam is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 01:01 PM   #4
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 wildwoodfam View Post
Lakefront has its privileges and its drawbacks - though the drawbacks are VERY few in comparison. One is noises on the lake late night. If this is the first time you've been awakened then consider yourself lucky - or maybe this is your first season, in that case get used to it! Not everyone takes into account how their actions directly or indirectly impact others - thats reality. Noise machines, an airconditioner, or fan (like KC said), work best at masking the sounds of the lake. I am sure there are those who will argue and say that somehow it is within their rights to not be disturbed...and I am not disagreeing with you, only trying to offer a suggestion if our friend is a light sleeper.

I prefer the sounds of the lake over a fan, ac or anything - and on occassion, will be jarred out of bed by the sounds of a large boat with a noisy engine. (AGENDA??) Nope, I wish my 20 foot runabout had the capability of noises like the bigger guys but in reality it doesn come close - though it would sure enable me to get back at my neighors every now and then...although I must admit having an infant in the camp during the summer - windows wide open and baby screaming at 4 or 5am sometimes just makes me smile, knowing the neighbors have probably just hit REM4 and were jarred awake! And at 5am - since I am up with the babies - I get in my boat with the baby and head off to get my cup a joe and morning news! Sorry if the dog barks incessantly as I leave her on the dock...that would drive me crazy!!

I was saying I'm sure it's on SOMEONE'S agenda to ban boating at night, not pointing the finger at anyone in specific.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 05:08 PM   #5
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,670
Thanks: 463
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

Kona, you are so right. When the new law takes effect the loud boats coming in slowly at night will drive us crazy. I remember a few years ago we had one that came in every single Sat. night very slowly, it took about 45 minutes. It woke the whole neighborhood up (well, many of us). Then they would dock, shut it off, then start it up again before stopping it. I think those that love the speed limit law are going to hate the noise. They will get what they asked for!
tis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 07-05-2008, 05:33 PM   #6
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 I'd like to see a rule change

There are a LOT of boaters who like the rumble of their high performance boats, who stay under the noise limit as they should, who would gladly dampen the noise at night if they could do it legally.

The state of NH made it illegal to have devices like Captain's Call or Silent Choice and the like. These allow you to switch the exhaust from rumbly to quiet. My boat had it but the MP's made me disable it (and I don't have a high performance boat by the way).

Some people who are forced to choose between loud or soft, go loud to keep the cool sounding rumble. Friends of mine without Captain's call wish they could have it so they could come into the marina quietly at night.

Why doesn't some representative propose a bill to change that? Why not let people quiet their boats down at night and be rumbly by day? Ugh. It makes no sense.
Coastal Laker is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 10:26 PM   #7
rick35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bear Island/Merrimack
Posts: 562
Thanks: 29
Thanked 116 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Maybe I am lucky that this was the first time I was jolted awake by a passing boat. I've been on the lake for almost 30 years and a property owner for 16 and this was by far the loudest I've every heard.

I'm not suggesting that there should be some new law that regulates decibles but I'm sure there are some who would love to see one.

Another new sound I heard this week was the sound of blaring music playing from a boat pulling wakeboarders down a little from our camp. I guess we've been lucky that it hasn't caught on like it has other places. I've seen posts in other boating forums about people installing powerful sound systems in their boats and mounting big speakers in their wakeboard towers. I don't appreciate loud music in our neighborhood at home and its even worse at the lake. It goes against the very reason why the lake has been a special place.

Its really about courtesy and respect for other people around us. Unfortunately there less of it these days.
rick35 is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 07:54 AM   #8
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,670
Thanks: 463
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

I must admit, I love the rumble of the boats too. Since there is a decibel law, I suppose that is the reason they have the law against the devices. MP couldn't tell if someone's boat could be above 82 because they switch to quiet when they see the MP.
tis is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 08:05 AM   #9
JDeere
Senior Member
 
JDeere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 295
Thanks: 74
Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Quote:
Some people don't get it and never will.
Rick writes that some people are rude or less than considerate and the replies back to him somehow turn into what the laws do and do not allow or it links to the speed limit. All he said was where is the respect for your neighbors.

Like he said some people just do not get it.
JDeere is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 09:01 AM   #10
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rick35 View Post
I've seen posts in other boating forums about people installing powerful sound systems in their boats and mounting big speakers in their wakeboard towers. I don't appreciate loud music in our neighborhood at home and its even worse at the lake. It goes against the very reason why the lake has been a special place.

Its really about courtesy and respect for other people around us. Unfortunately there less of it these days.
Just hope the wakeboarder falls down a lot.

They always turn down the noise when THEY want to talk!
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 09:03 PM   #11
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rick35 View Post
Maybe I am lucky that this was the first time I was jolted awake by a passing boat. I've been on the lake for almost 30 years and a property owner for 16 and this was by far the loudest I've every heard.

I'm not suggesting that there should be some new law that regulates decibles but I'm sure there are some who would love to see one.

Another new sound I heard this week was the sound of blaring music playing from a boat pulling wakeboarders down a little from our camp. I guess we've been lucky that it hasn't caught on like it has other places. I've seen posts in other boating forums about people installing powerful sound systems in their boats and mounting big speakers in their wakeboard towers. I don't appreciate loud music in our neighborhood at home and its even worse at the lake. It goes against the very reason why the lake has been a special place.

Its really about courtesy and respect for other people around us. Unfortunately there less of it these days.
If the wakeboard boat in question was black and yellow it was ME. If it was the red, white and black Supra or any others it was not. And for the record our music is played just loud enough for the rider to hear, and is muted when the boat is stopped or driving but not towing. Been doing it in the same area for the last 4 years and never a complaint. We don't just drive around with music cranking, trying to be obnoxious. We are careful where we go, how close to shore and other boats we are, and are mindful of others enjoying their watersports as well. Actually we get a lot of thumbs up and waves from people watching the riders.

If you want to talk about lack of courtesy, how about all the boats in the area that have no idea of what 150' looks like??? Do you know how many times in the course of a weekend we have close calls, get cut off or just witness stupidity? A guy in a scarab on Saturday cruised by my boarder who was in the water waiting to be pulled at no more than 50' away. We yelled, blew the horn and "saluted" and he just smiled and drove on. Some of the residents on the island, just down from me, are offenders. Maybe you???

As far as a particularly loud boat that night, I was awake and by a campfire at that time and do not recall anything out of the ordinary. Night traffic in general has been almost non-existent lately, and with the stepped-up MP patrols in the area due to a few phone calls it has been more peaceful lately.

Any music requests? Maybe "Who let the dogs out?" in honor of the concentrated trolling efforts recently of 2BD?

Last edited by codeman671; 07-06-2008 at 09:21 PM. Reason: forgot to pay tribute to everyones favorite troll
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 10:05 PM   #12
rick35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bear Island/Merrimack
Posts: 562
Thanks: 29
Thanked 116 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Wasn't me. Even with fewer boaters out there seem to be as many knuckleheads who have no respect for the 150 foot rule. I always stay way away from anyone pulling a tube or skiier. You never know when the rider might go down and even 150 feet is not enough.
rick35 is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 08:47 AM   #13
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
Any music requests? Maybe "Who let the dogs out?" in honor of the concentrated trolling efforts recently of 2BD?
"Trolling" was best described as a poster who joins a cat-lover's forum then proceeds to say, "I love driving over cats".

I'm opposed to anybody driving over the rights of others to the detriment of a full enjoyment of Winni's natural attributes or to driving over any other boater, for that matter. AND cats.

The "150-rule" was not the best way to deflect your own contribution to the noise level.

Especially on weekends, Winni's high noise level can impact on-shore telephone use, ordinary conversations, those asleep, those listening to music, nature, or just listening to the wind in the pines. Not to mention the noise level that can impact boating emergencies, sounded signals, the sounds of warnings, cries for help, telephoning for help, and the hampering of an actual boating rescue or capsize.

"Driving over others" includes those who are so intolerant of others that they still use switchable exhaust among their neighbors, throw wine bottles in the lake, and turn up the stereo to play "Who let the Dogs Out". Expect a post from me when those who think their personal concept of boating does not "impact" other boaters or lake residents.

KC, Winni's boating is entirely recreational in nature, but can have serious consequences. "Driving up to your cottage" is not recreational in nature.

Coastal Laker, for every marina you should enter with "Captain's Call" at the appropriate setting, there are thousands of Winni residents asleep.

All the above was brought to mind by stumbling across the site www.rottenneighbors.com.

Who might be the next Winni boater featured on a video someday?!?!
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 09:41 AM   #14
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Same here this weekend, with the gorgeous weather. Every idiot within 100 miles had to be here. SOS though.

1) Too Close, Waaaaay too close for comfort
2) Tubting, even wakeboarding between anchored boats in beach area in about 6' of water

3) Some idiot in a GSBL (go slow be loud) boat, racing two PWC's FROM THE BEACH

4) Police boat stopped a PWC, no issues I saw, and a dinghy in the beach area. After 45 minutes total, police boat took off never to be seen again.

5) Large cruisers making larger waves, too close

6) One GFBL boat going waaaaaay too fast and too close in the bay.

7) Many smaller boats refusing to change their straight line course (center of channel) regardless of whether there was a blowboat or another boat towing someone on a tube.


Police CG presence? I'd give them an F overall for the busiest weekend of the year. Laws broken? Too many to count.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 11:15 AM   #15
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

Rick35

That boat went between Bear and Pine Islands as well. There has been a boat doing this for years. Usually Friday or Saturday nights between midnight and 2 AM. Very load and very fast, I wait to hear if he will hit the no wake marker, but he never does. Either very lucky or good night vision.

The old marker has a big metal thing that got hit real bad. The newer one is much lighter and will do less damage.

And he ALWAYS goes by south to north.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 11:50 AM   #16
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
Rick35

That boat went between Bear and Pine Islands as well. There has been a boat doing this for years. Usually Friday or Saturday nights between midnight and 2 AM. Very load and very fast, I wait to hear if he will hit the no wake marker, but he never does. Either very lucky or good night vision.

The old marker has a big metal thing that got hit real bad. The newer one is much lighter and will do less damage.

And he ALWAYS goes by south to north.

Sounds like an ideal candidate for the MP to wait for. Have you phoned in the boat's coordinates and MO?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 12:39 PM   #17
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

I did notice that someone hit the red/white spar at the tip of Bear this weekend, either Friday or Saturday night. The top was almost sliced off. I know my stereo did not do that
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 12:53 PM   #18
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 2Blackdogs View Post
"Trolling" was best described as a poster who joins a cat-lover's forum then proceeds to say, "I love driving over cats".

I'm opposed to anybody driving over the rights of others to the detriment of a full enjoyment of Winni's natural attributes or to driving over any other boater, for that matter. AND cats.

The "150-rule" was not the best way to deflect your own contribution to the noise level.

Especially on weekends, Winni's high noise level can impact on-shore telephone use, ordinary conversations, those asleep, those listening to music, nature, or just listening to the wind in the pines. Not to mention the noise level that can impact boating emergencies, sounded signals, the sounds of warnings, cries for help, telephoning for help, and the hampering of an actual boating rescue or capsize.

"Driving over others" includes those who are so intolerant of others that they still use switchable exhaust among their neighbors, throw wine bottles in the lake, and turn up the stereo to play "Who let the Dogs Out". Expect a post from me when those who think their personal concept of boating does not "impact" other boaters or lake residents.

KC, Winni's boating is entirely recreational in nature, but can have serious consequences. "Driving up to your cottage" is not recreational in nature.

Coastal Laker, for every marina you should enter with "Captain's Call" at the appropriate setting, there are thousands of Winni residents asleep.

All the above was brought to mind by stumbling across the site www.rottenneighbors.com.

Who might be the next Winni boater featured on a video someday?!?!
KC, Winni's boating is entirrely recreational in nature, but can have serious consequences. "Driving up to your cottage" is not recreational in nature.

I have NO IDEA what you mean by this or what your point is. MY point is that you're in much more danger driving up to your "recreation" destination than you are when you're sleeping at your recreation destionation. I have no clue what you're trying to reference by that statement.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 01:24 PM   #19
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
Sounds like an ideal candidate for the MP to wait for. Have you phoned in the boat's coordinates and MO?
The MP were around the NWZ last night blue lighting a few boats. But over night I think there is only one boat on duty.

I wonder if he will do it next year? It will be harder to get away with if he is breaking the law all the time instead of just busting the zone.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 03:20 PM   #20
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do?

I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 05:49 PM   #21
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do?

I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.
Yes he is breaking the law now, but only at one place on the lake. He may be easier to catch when is breaking the law all over the lake.

By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 06:24 PM   #22
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 Bear Islander View Post
Yes he is breaking the law now, but only at one place on the lake. He may be easier to catch when is breaking the law all over the lake.

By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.
How do you know he'll be breaking the law all over the lake next year. You've witnessed him buzzing through the NWZ so you know he's broken that law but what other law has he broken besides that and how do you know he'll be breaking it next year. Have fun with boats going 25 mph or less by your house each night next summer...hopefully you're a night owl.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 07:02 PM   #23
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Isn't he already breaking the law? Sounds like he's going through no wake zones without slowing down; probably going too fast for conditions already. What will the speed limit do? I'll take a guess that he'll still be doing this next year.
Next year, BI's night-time offender will be identified by an unseen officer with radar.
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 08:12 PM   #24
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
How do you know he'll be breaking the law all over the lake next year. You've witnessed him buzzing through the NWZ so you know he's broken that law but what other law has he broken besides that and how do you know he'll be breaking it next year. Have fun with boats going 25 mph or less by your house each night next summer...hopefully you're a night owl.
Next year he will be speeding unless he changes his ways. I don't know how fast he has been going, but it is way way over 25.

Boats going by don't bother me at any speed. The lights and the sound are relaxing actually. If I didn't like the site and sound of boats, I wouldn't live on a point.

You seem to be stuck on your own stereotyped image of speed limit supporters. Your boat hating islander theory is mutually exclusive.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 08:21 PM   #25
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 Bear Islander View Post
Next year he will be speeding unless he changes his ways. I don't know how fast he has been going, but it is way way over 25.

Boats going by don't bother me at any speed. The lights and the sound are relaxing actually. If I didn't like the site and sound of boats, I wouldn't live on a point.

You seem to be stuck on your own stereotyped image of speed limit supporters. Your boat hating islander theory is mutually exclusive.
Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 09:42 PM   #26
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
By next year I should have an infrared camera with motion detection isolated on the NWZ. Then I can email his picture to the MP.

Choose wisely, most "motion detection" cameras work horribly outdoors and will trigger many false alarms.

Get something with a decent cut filter and adjustable imager settings and you should get some good shots with just the moonlight. You'll likely want at least D1/4CIF resolution as well. Megapixel would be good, but probably not strickly necessary.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 11:43 PM   #27
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??
Are you Trolling again?

I don't get it. What are you after? Will it give you "closure" to catch the opposition in a semantic error? Do you have to make every thread about speed limits? How can anybody know the intent of an unknown person? He is breaking one law now... if he does the same thing next year he will be breaking two. What is your point?
Islander is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 08:17 AM   #28
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
Once again I ask how do you know he intends to "speed" at night once the law is passed??
Once again?

KC, why the "shove" aspect to these questions at this thread?

First, we are to "shove" our fingers into our ears against noisy boaters?

Second, we are to "shove" concerns about lakefronts being struck....right after one WAS hit?

One poster wrote here, "Good luck trying to enforce this" and intended to, "boat as I always have". Let me ask you, doesn't that "shove-it-attitude" of a poster here fit the template perfectly to be Bear Islander's targeted night-time offender?

.....Since it only takes a handful of boaters to ruin it for everybody, there's a lot of arrogant "shoving" going on here.....
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 08:47 AM   #29
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 Islander View Post
Are you Trolling again?

I don't get it. What are you after? Will it give you "closure" to catch the opposition in a semantic error? Do you have to make every thread about speed limits? How can anybody know the intent of an unknown person? He is breaking one law now... if he does the same thing next year he will be breaking two. What is your point?
No not trolling just asking a question pertainting to BI's post...isn't that clear?
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 08:55 AM   #30
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 2Blackdogs View Post
Once again?

KC, why the "shove" aspect to these questions at this thread?

First, we are to "shove" our fingers into our ears against noisy boaters?

Second, we are to "shove" concerns about lakefronts being struck....right after one WAS hit?

One poster wrote here, "Good luck trying to enforce this" and intended to, "boat as I always have". Let me ask you, doesn't that "shove-it-attitude" of a poster here fit the template perfectly to be Bear Islander's targeted night-time offender?

.....Since it only takes a handful of boaters to ruin it for everybody, there's a lot of arrogant "shoving" going on here.....
There's an saying..."one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch" , it's also a song by The Osmond Brothers and now I'm really feeling old.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 08:56 AM   #31
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

i guess with the speed limit in place, MP hears this guy and then starts chasing him around the lake? doesn't sound all that safe to me. sounds like the probability of an accident goes up significantly.
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 10:52 AM   #32
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
i guess with the speed limit in place, MP hears this guy and then starts chasing him around the lake? doesn't sound all that safe to me. sounds like the probability of an accident goes up significantly.
You are using faulty logic. By your way of thinking our highways would be safer if we didn't have speed limits on them. Because then the police would not be chasing offenders. But that's not the way it works, is it! Do you really think boats will run from the Marine Patrol? Where will they run to? Where can they hide? Winni is a closed environment.
Islander is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 11:44 AM   #33
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander View Post
You are using faulty logic. By your way of thinking our highways would be safer if we didn't have speed limits on them. Because then the police would not be chasing offenders. But that's not the way it works, is it! Do you really think boats will run from the Marine Patrol? Where will they run to? Where can they hide? Winni is a closed environment.
German autobahns (no day time speed limit, for the most part, night time limit of 130 kmh (80 MPH or so)) have historically had a lower accident rate than US highways. Many US police departments have a no high speed chase policy because it turns out the chase is typically far more dangerous for the general public than the offense that started the chase.

That said, I see your point and honestly do not expect to see any high speed chases on this lake...
Dave R is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:13 PM   #34
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 MP were around the NWZ last night blue lighting a few boats. But over night I think there is only one boat on duty.

I wonder if he will do it next year? It will be harder to get away with if he is breaking the law all the time instead of just busting the zone.
First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.

BI, what the heck? He runs nightly at high speed and very loud through a NWZ and you're wondering if he'll do it next year? I guess you're saying the enforcement is so lacking that you need to be breaking a law everywhere to occasionally get the perp? I'd be far more worried, and very annoyed, about someone doing that in a NWZ than someone going 50 mph at night. Different breed of arrogant.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:44 PM   #35
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
First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.

BI, what the heck? He runs nightly at high speed and very loud through a NWZ and you're wondering if he'll do it next year? I guess you're saying the enforcement is so lacking that you need to be breaking a law everywhere to occasionally get the perp? I'd be far more worried, and very annoyed, about someone doing that in a NWZ than someone going 50 mph at night. Different breed of arrogant.
The NWZ was created because of congestion in a narrow passage. There are probably no boats in the NWZ when he goes through at 1 or 2 am. And it's not every night, just now and then on weekends. I'm not saying it's OK. I would love it if the MP were waiting for him when he came through some night.

I have the MP on my scanner. Every hour each boat out reports their location. That time of night it's usually one boat on a large lake.

All in all the guys that really get me are the ones that follow behind you when your tubing. That is world class stupid, yet legal if he is back 150'. It doesn't happen often, but once is to many.

Steve it seems boats busting a NWZ gets you angry. If so don't live next to a NWZ.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:52 PM   #36
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
First off, I agree with the original theme of the thread, which is common courtesy, where the heck is it? We had a few of those types on Winni many, many years ago, most areas do.
It's really not nearly as bad as people would have you think. Winnipesaukee is a very polite and low-key place to boat. We truly are spoiled.
Dave R is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 02:45 PM   #37
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Because we expect too much of our boaters?
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 03:34 PM   #38
Jeti
Member
 
Jeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bedford NH
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default

We're just talkin' about the future
Forget about the past
It'll always be with us
It's never gonna die, never gonna die

Rock 'n' roll ain't noise pollution
Rock 'n' roll ain't gonna die
Rock 'n' roll ain't no pollution
Rock 'n' roll is just rock 'n' roll
Jeti is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:46 AM   #39
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs View Post
Because we expect too much of our boaters?
Perhaps, but I think it's because the majority are courteous and thoughtful; so much so, that the occasional boneheads really stand out (not unlike posters on this forum). Maybe they have risen to our expectations?
Dave R is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 12:13 PM   #40
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
Steve it seems boats busting a NWZ gets you angry. If so don't live next to a NWZ.

I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:03 PM   #41
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,434
Thanks: 143
Thanked 992 Times in 371 Posts
Default

I'm probably the only person on the forum who welcomes NWZ violators.....I live in a no wake zone and it's nice to have a few waves to clean my beach every now and then.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:08 AM   #42
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
I don't, but you do. Yes, busting a NWZ irritates me. I guess I'm just still stuck in the past with what you claimed irritated you, not the recent proclamations as to what you're really concerned about. Yes, congestion sucks, we all have to deal with it somehow. I hate the boneheads. I hate boats cutting me off, and those that are way too close. Boats following those with tubers or skiers also bother me.

But I do state what I mean, and do not obfuscate the message, nor do I mislead the reader. I try to focus on real issues and try to participate in solving them. One of the very first things I would have done over there, is push hard for years for increased MP funding, not more laws. But then again, I addressed the problems stated, not hidden agendas.
This hidden agenda stuff is either crap or bad memory. It's the opposition that keeps talking about safety, so naturally the pro-limit side responds about safety. And I'm sure that for some on "my" side it is only about safety. But I have been telling people for years that "its not just about safety" or that "safety is not my first concern".

Read this post by Woodsy from 2005. In it Representative Pilliod, the author of the original bill, clearly states it is all about "Fear". He also makes it plain he thinks high performance boats don't belong on the lake, and that they should go to the ocean.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?p=23856

Quote:

"...However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it..."

..."why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for"....
You can read down a few posts and see what others, including yours truly, has to say about it.

So you see Steve this hidden agenda stuff is pure baloney. So please either stop posting about it or tell me specifically what you think has been hidden.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 07:57 AM   #43
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default Let's just see how this goes

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

""Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer."

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 10:15 AM   #44
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
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

""Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer."

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.
I don't see what those quotes prove. Like I said, the opposition wanted to focus on the safety issue so that is what I responded to.

45 IS safer than 55.

That IS all the justification that is necessary (however there is a lot more)

Coast Guard statistics DO support HB847

A 45 mph speed limit WILL make the lake safer

I DID NOT pick 45

45 IS lower than I believe necessary

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

Children's camps ARE limiting their boating

There IS fear in the lake community

The lake DOES have a thrill-seeking reputation

Tourism IS negatively effected by the above

Every word is true. Every word is consistent. Every argument points to a reason I support speed limits. I am not limited to one argument. I can have more than one agenda!
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 11:12 AM   #45
COWISLAND NH
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

QUOTE]

What's next...no boats on the lake over 18 feet??? YADDA YADDA YADDA.
Careful what you vote for....I don't want to be swimming to the island in ten years!
COWISLAND NH is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:13 PM   #46
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default New buzz word

First,boats that didn't fit winnfabs and their supporters idea of what should be on the lake were labeled Go Fast Be Load.Then the lake has been labeled dangerous because of the "Cowboy" and "Wild West" attitudes.Now any boat that can go much faster than 45 is labeled a "Thrillseeker".The scare tactics continue even after the law was signed in.What's next?Will it be those evil"Mechanical Monsters" that used to be called power boats?
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:44 PM   #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 New law?

How about this logic:

0 MPH is safer than 1 MPH. We should ban movement on the lake.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 02:27 PM   #48
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
Perhaps, but I think it's because the majority are courteous and thoughtful; so much so, that the occasional boneheads really stand out (not unlike posters on this forum). Maybe they have risen to our expectations?
Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 03:02 PM   #49
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 2Blackdogs View Post
Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

In my opinion a bad boater is a bad boater...what does it matter what "state" they are from? Is this YOUR hidden agenda 2bd? Where do you think all your fellow supporters over on BI are from? It ain't NH!! As far as the Cobalt sinking in the middle of the lake what does this have to do with anything? Are you now saying that innocent swimmers are being run down by big bad boats? This is bordering on the absurd, truly.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 08:59 AM   #50
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
Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

By now you probably have heard that hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake and has become so bad that we had a speed limit passed to eliminate that problem.It has now been brought to my attention that swimmers are being run down intentionally also.Interesting though is the thoughts of some of our local residents like the above quoted BD who tells us in this post that only people like himself are qualified to recreate on Lake Winni.If you are from another state(which I am not) or you disagree with his twisted view of the world,you should be banned from ever being on the lake.This is where these warped thinking people who have already started the ball rolling are going folks.WAKE UP and see what's going on people.I don't know about you but it this kind of thinking that should scare the heck out of all of us!
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 09:37 AM   #51
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
This is where these warped thinking people who have already started the ball rolling are going folks.WAKE UP and see what's going on people.I don't know about you but it this kind of thinking that should scare the heck out of all of us!
Seems to me you're being overly dramatic here. Polls showed NH people wanted this (yes I know you disagree with the results of the poll), the house voted for HB 847 by a wide margin, then the senate voted for it, now the governor has signed on as well. And just like people would legislate,say, against someone relieving himself in a town park, people have similarly said they don't want another beautiful resource (Winni) defiled. And the house, senate, and governor listened. I've heard all the arguments about "fear mongering" and such but people are able to see through the BS of politics and polititians and make up their own minds. People we talk to are very happy and excited about the new limits.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 12:31 PM   #52
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
By now you probably have heard that hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake and has become so bad that we had a speed limit passed to eliminate that problem.
As the kayaker on this forum who has posted the most about why kayaking has become dangerous on the lake, I have never once posted that high-speed boats are running over kayaks.

What I have posted is that SOME high-speed boaters are traveling faster than their ability to spot smaller, slower boats in time and that I have personally had high-speed boats unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast. And this has happened way too often while I’ve been kayaking on winni.

I’ve never suggested that a speed limit will eliminate all safety issues – anymore than highway speed limits solve all safety issues on the highway – both are merely tools that are used to make both activities safer for everyone.

Congestion, BWI, and ignorance/disregard for existing boating laws are also major problems on the lake – but all these problems become even more dangerous with higher speeds. With all else being equal, slower is safer.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 12:41 PM   #53
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

I never claimed that you did.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 01:28 PM   #54
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
Congestion, BWI, and ignorance/disregard for existing boating laws are also major problems on the lake – but all these problems become even more dangerous with higher speeds. With all else being equal, slower is safer.
These ARE the problems on the lake. Enforcement of the current rules will alleviate these major problems. A feel good law based on lies and hype will not.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 01:58 PM   #55
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
I never claimed that you did.
And I didn't say that you claimed that I did. But I am interested in where you (or anyone else visiting this forum) heard that "hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake." Who ever suggested that was happening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
These ARE the problems on the lake. Enforcement of the current rules will alleviate these major problems. A feel good law based on lies and hype will not.
The current rules are being enforced - but there is no way to enforce the current rules over 100% of the lake 100% of the time.

How is this a "feel good law," anymore than a highway speed limit is one?

The law was based on people's testimony that a lake speed limit was needed. I gave my own testimony, which was based on my own actual experience and on documented statistics - and I did not exaggerate in any way and I do not lie.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 02:00 PM   #56
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??
KonaChick is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 02:47 PM   #57
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
but there is no way to enforce the current rules over 100% of the lake 100% of the time.
Your logic is severly flawed. If you can't enfore existing laws, how will the new SL be enforced? I'm not sure if you saw any of my posts from the past week, but there was very little MP presence on the lake last weekend. It was heavily congested. Gas prices are keeping MP boats docked, but not keeping boats off the lake. The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
How is this a "feel good law," anymore than a highway speed limit is one?
Because there have been numerous, documented cases where it has been shown that speed, and speed alone were the direct result of accidents on highways. These facts just didn't exist in Concord.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 03:31 PM   #58
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.


Doesn't seem as though much magic needs to be imagined.
Let's say an accident occurs next summer.What if the speed of the boat is 45 MPH?...then people might well conclude that that was better than if the accident occurred at 65 MPH. What if there are no accidents?...one could also conclude that HB 847 was effective. What if there's an accident at 65 MPH?...conclusion:need to put further scrutiny on these few offenders who are breaking the law. Then there's the testimony of people who enjoy the lake more when GFBLs are no longer legally zipping by them at 65 MPH just 150' away from their rowboat while fishing. And don't forget improvement of Winni's embarrassing wild west reputation(which came well before WINNFABS).
People will indeed realize in 2 years that the world did not suddenly stop spinning in its axis just because of HB 847.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 03:59 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
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??
I've very clearly stated numerous times, in great detail, why these specific violations were speed related - so do a search on my previous posts. These specific violations were not intentional - they were unintentional - due to speed. I have never have never been a victim of an unintentional 150 foot violation on Squam - where there is a 40mph enforced speed limit. And I paddle Squam a great deal more than I paddle on winni.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Your logic is severly flawed. If you can't enfore existing laws, how will the new SL be enforced? The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.
How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you saw any of my posts from the past week, but there was very little MP presence on the lake last weekend. It was heavily congested. Gas prices are keeping MP boats docked, but not keeping boats off the lake.
Do you know for a fact that the MP is spending any less time on the lake this summer than last? If so, do you have any proof that this is due to gas prices? A MP boat was on the lake near me last week, and they have to trailer their boats to be on this lake. And I saw just as many MP on Squam last Saturday. Their presence on both lakes seems about the same as any summer to me.

Quote:
Because there have been numerous, documented cases where it has been shown that speed, and speed alone were the direct result of accidents on highways. These facts just didn't exist in Concord.
Collisions might be rare, but close calls from high speed boats seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats, so I know for a fact that they happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not dangerous to paddlers.

And when there is a boating accident, there's no accurate way to estimate how fast the boat was traveling - the main tool for estimating auto accident speeds are tire skid marks - boats don't leave skid marks.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 05:43 PM   #60
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
What if there are no accidents?...one could also conclude that HB 847 was effective.
Then what is your "conclusion" for years where there were no accidents and no speed limit?

Quote:
Then there's the testimony of people who enjoy the lake more when GFBLs are no longer legally zipping by them at 65 MPH just 150' away from their rowboat while fishing.
SOMEBODY will always like it better when SOMEBODY else can no longer enjoy some activity in their backyard.

I'd enjoy the lake more (and I don't own a boat capable of exceeding 45MPH) if there weren't fishermen in boats in the middle of common powerboat paths, or kayakers paddling along with idiotic grins on their faces in front of town docks while boats come in and out, attempting to maintain proper distance from other boats.

In fact I'd enjoy the lake even more if EVERYBODY else stayed off the lake at the random times that *I* want to use it.

Of course, much like the supposedly perfect worlds that you and Evenstar pine for, I realize that these wants of mine are unrealistic and unfair.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 05:47 PM   #61
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post

How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.
What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure?

Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief? (We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 05:51 PM   #62
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??
Evenstar attributes the majority of her posts to her own personal interpretations of things.

She could make great strides in lake safety by simply riding with the NHMP boats and acting as a human radar gun. No electronic detector would ever be able to warn the nasty power-drunk GFBL boaters traveling faster than their ability to see that the Evenstar 5000 was watching them. Of course, she would have to be sure to not be wearing her BLUE bikini and YELLOW lifevest and waving her ORANGE paddle tips ****
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 06:24 PM   #63
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure? Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief?
So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)

Quote:
(We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)
I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 06:48 PM   #64
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.
So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"?

But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to. Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:

1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.

2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.

3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.

4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

Quote:
Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law
Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. You've sort of painted yourself into a corner all your own. Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 06:50 PM   #65
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)



I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?
For as many people to fabricate as much fear as they did to push this law through, then yes current laws are not being enforced enough. We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason. This law is an example of that and I can't wait for the cycle to end. There is no concrete proof there is a speeding problem, just fabricated fear and perception of a problem as a result. I sat in the hearing in Concord and listened to the same thing over and over again from the Pro crowd. Fear, I'm afraid, Fear I'm afraid. Big boats, I'm afraid. Sadly it worked.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 08:29 PM   #66
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

So if so-called high speed powerboats are coming within 64 feet or less from you, do you think the real problem is the speed they are traveling at is hampering their vision (again, at 64 feet!) and preventing you from being seen sooner or the utter lack of common courtesy or disobedience of the laws in place is the problem???

My experience on Winnipesaukee or on boats in general, which I can say is clearly a lot more than yours, is that most boats on Winni ignore the 150' rule. Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

The speed limit is not going to fix your problem. You are looking through rose colored shades and/or drinking the coolaid if you think you will be safer. Winnipesaukee in general this year is a ghost town compared to previous years, and it is not the speed limit that is pending quieting things down.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:08 PM   #67
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
So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"? But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to.
I never said that – I happen to believe that most boating laws are not intentionally being broken by most boaters – which is, in itself, enforcement, since one of the definitions of enforcement is: “compel to behave in a certain way.” By your logic (since my logic is so flawed), a single unenforced violation of a law proves that a law is not being enforced. So, by that logic, no laws are being enforced in this country. So who’s logic is actually the most flawed?

Quote:
Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:
1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.
2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.
3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.
4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.
I can follow the spirit of others posts just fine. The problem is that I disagee with them, due to my onw experience on the lake. Most posting members of this forum is so anti-speed limit focused that anyone who is supportive of a lake speed limit must have “flawed logic” or is “unable to follow the spirit of the other posts.”

1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see other vessels in time to remain clear of their 150 foot zone, that law is not protecting them. I contend that in these cases, the only real solution is to force boats to slow down.

2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”

3.) Again, where’s your proof that this is so? Because I totally disagree with your conclusion, and one of my majors is Legal Studies. According to my professors, most people will try to follow most laws most of the time. And what is so “burdensome” about a 45mph lake speed limit?

4.) Times change. Laws that were sufficient in early times need to be updated due to changes in society, in the environment, in new technology, or because of new information. And it is much more difficult to amend an existing law than to enact a new law.

Quote:
Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. . . . Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.
It is very easy to make allegations about others or to poke fun of others in order to discredit them. Yet you have not provided any proof at all to any of your own statements – all you’ve posted so far are just your own beliefs. Your post (#62) is nothing but a personal attack on me. Personal attacks are what several of the anti-speed limit members here resort to when they can’t out debate another member.

Perhaps most other members don’t feel like I need anyone to “come to my rescue.” Or perhaps they are not willing to become a target of the anti-speed limit members here. I get all sorts of email support from many non-vocal members here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason.
I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.

Quote:
You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.
I have never bragged about my skills. I never even mentioned most of my skills or my background until my abilities and my qualifications were questioned (or often ridiculed) by other members here – often repeatedly. I never lie and I have never exaggerated my skills or abilities. I “ease up” when others ease up on me. If your abilities and skills were constantly being challenged, wouldn’t you try to stand up for yourself?

Quote:
Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.
I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?
I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:44 PM   #68
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.
It's a waste of my time to do so. We all know a speed limit will change nothing. You won't agree. I don't care. I'm done.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 12:31 AM   #69
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default Apples vs Oranges

Evenstar,

Regarding the comments of Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, he does not patrol waters with a 150' rule in place.

To be fair, I believe this is an important fact that has to be considered. This is somewhat like apples being compared to oranges.

The 150' rule is an important Lake Winnipesaukee rule and to compare a statement made by a respected CG professional who partols waters without the 150' rule to our lake is clearly unfair.

Just my opinion.

Enjoy your summer break!

R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 01:17 AM   #70
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 Costal Laker
Why doesn't some representative propose a bill to change that? Why not let people quiet their boats down at night and be rumbly by day? Ugh. It makes no sense.
You will never see that bill filed. Why? No payback. It's not sexy. People who don't boat could care less. Speed limits are a "no brainer" but a bill that would help rich people sleep at night in their lake front mansions, the rep would be seen pandering to wealthy out-of-staters while ignoring the plight of the hard working New Hampshire folk. Never mind that it actually would be something to improve the lake unlike the speed limits law!
If you want switchable exhaust you're better off petitioning the NHMP for a rules change.
Quote:
Originally posted by VtSteve
Police CG presence? I'd give them an F overall for the busiest weekend of the year. Laws broken? Too many to count.
There is NO Coast Guard presence on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
And I didn't say that you claimed that I did. But I am interested in where you (or anyone else visiting this forum) heard that "hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake." Who ever suggested that was happening?
Go back and look at most any of the posts written by APS!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:37 AM   #71
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)
I am aware that took place on "Golden Squam", not on Winnipesaukee. I remember the post well. Its quite easy as all of your posts contain the same few points... "Unlimited speeds", "too close", "personal attacks", "skills", "spacial awareness", blah blah blah...

This post started about sounds at night, why are you dragging this into another kayaking rant??? You got what you asked for, I hope you feel safer now. I bet you won't and when you figure out that your concerns were not addressed by the speed limit, what next?
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:37 AM   #72
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,670
Thanks: 463
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

I admire you guys for taking the time and having the patience to write as much as you write. It takes a lot of time and thought to write that much. I would just get sick of (essentially) writing the same things over and over again. And as much as I think the speed limit is a foolish, unnecessary law, I wish almost every thread wouldn't turn into a speed limit argument. I would just ignore Evenstar and BI. I couldn't argue that much. My two cents ---not that anyone cares.
tis is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:59 AM   #73
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”
When I say "appears to be", most rational people would understand that I am making an observation and not necessarily submitting something as evidence.

Once again, you read things through your own blinders and filters.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:25 AM   #74
Skipper of the Sea Que
Deceased Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Exclamation Evenstar - if you know what I feel then .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.
Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).
Which one of your skills lets you know how I feel? I won't challenge your credibility however that is one heck of an impressive skill. You also know how these "few" with fast boats feel. Wow.

Please note: I am NOT one of the "few" with a boat that travels at or over 45 mph (Let me qualify that to close any legal loopholes - My boat can go over 45mph downhill or when it's on the trailer towed behind a truck on the road) but it does not even get to 40 mph at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) on the Lake.

I am one of the MANY who believe that additional speed regulations are NOT needed on Lake Winnipesaukee. One of the MANY without a FAST BOAT that feels this way. In spite of what you claim, I do NOT "feel" that anyone has the right to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake. OF course I don't believe that it is legal to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake - there are regulations regarding safe speeds already - but that has been discussed and discussed so many times that I'm disgusted.

Anti 45/25 mph speed limit law does NOT mean advocating Unlimited Speed - Unlimited Speed is not currently legal anyway. Can you tell how I feel now? Nevermind, no answer is necessary. I have no desire to debate with you. I just want to set the record straight.

On topic, there are also laws about SOUND LEVELS which address sound - no need for speed limits to regulate SOUND. Better (modified) sound laws would be nice though.

kayakers love water --- boaters love lovers
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:36 AM   #75
rick35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bear Island/Merrimack
Posts: 562
Thanks: 29
Thanked 116 Times in 69 Posts
Default

The last thing I intended when I started this thread was to get redirected to another pointless discussion on speed limits. Every argument that could be made has been made. I have an oppinion on that but since it at least one other poster has voiced it I have not repeated it. If I may, the original intent was to discuss inconsiderate boaters who don't realize or care that sound carries at night. I'll even include inconsiderate (and stupid) boaters who have no regard for safe passage.

Hope everyone has a great day on the lake today. I'm stuck at home doing home repairs.

Rick
rick35 is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 09:58 AM   #76
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
I admire you guys for taking the time and having the patience to write as much as you write. It takes a lot of time and thought to write that much. I would just get sick of (essentially) writing the same things over and over again. And as much as I think the speed limit is a foolish, unnecessary law, I wish almost every thread wouldn't turn into a speed limit argument. I would just ignore Evenstar and BI. I couldn't argue that much. My two cents ---not that anyone cares.
I have reached the same conclusion. Of course we'll all be back fighting in just about 2 years.
EricP is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 07:42 AM   #77
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
1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see
We'll just stop this one right here....your opinions of boating at high speeds are just that - opinions and cannot be portrayed as facts in a logical arguement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Do you know for a fact that the MP is spending any less time on the lake this summer than last? If so, do you have any proof that this is due to gas prices? A MP boat was on the lake near me last week, and they have to trailer their boats to be on this lake. And I saw just as many MP on Squam last Saturday. Their presence on both lakes seems about the same as any summer to me.
I heard it from the kid working a gas dock who spoke with an MP earlier that weekend.
In all honestly, it holds about the same water (no pun intended) as Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski and his report on cars and boats in Miami.


For the record, Jim's rule #6 sounds like a great idea. Very similar to one we already had on the books.
Quote:
Rule - 6 requires that 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 safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: the visibility, traffic density, maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability, at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights, the state of the wind, sea, current, proximity of navigational hazards, and the draft in relation to the available depth of water. Additionally, vessels with operational radar must use that radar to its fullest extent to determine the risk of collision.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 08:48 AM   #78
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

rick39,

You didn't see where this thread was headed when you first saw the word *agenda* mentioned by opponents in post #2, 3, then 40?

Post #2 for example....,

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick View Post
There are no laws on the books saying boats can't travel at night but I'm sure that's on someone's *agenda*.
Another comment that needs attention is the *Autobahn* mention.....You need far more than a "certificate" to operate on the Autobahn.

Skipper,

Perhaps this season alone will prove the necessity for the new law. Even then, your side will have three years to exhibit their safe boating practices to NH residents. I wouldn't put *your* eggs into *their* basket, however.

If a few drunks get pulled over, that alone could save somebody's life, house, boat, plus change tourists' current view of Winni as lawless. You may not like the term Unlimited Speed, or that radar will now be used to spot offenders exceeding 25mph at night, but next season we ALL have a chance to find out.

*********************

Yesterday, I was passed by a dark blue Cobalt at about 150 feet, maybe less, in a relatively open area, but "crowded" with many anchored smaller boats.

They ARE fast boats!

And I've seen two Formula cruisers, one the same size as June 15th's crash, one smaller.

They ARE loud!
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 09:02 AM   #79
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).

- there are regulations regarding safe speeds already - but that has been discussed and discussed so many times that I'm disgusted.
Skipper -
If you are going to post "Points of Information" you should check and see if they are correct. There was no kind of "regulations regarding safe speeds" before HB847. This lie is often repeated yet not true. There was no "reasonable and prudent" regulation. However there is one now. It is called HB847. If you are a "Skipper" you should know this.
Islander is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 01:49 PM   #80
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
I am aware that took place on "Golden Squam", not on Winnipesaukee. I remember the post well.
The fact remains that you misquoted me. Please get your facts straight next time, before you accuse me of stating something that I didn't.

Quote:
This post started about sounds at night, why are you dragging this into another kayaking rant??? You got what you asked for, I hope you feel safer now. I bet you won't and when you figure out that your concerns were not addressed by the speed limit, what next?
I'm not the one that brought kayaks into this thread - you can blame SIKSUKR for that.

No, I didn't "get what I asked for." I want what the original bill included - which is speed limit on all NH lakes and a law that would not only last for two years. Winni is not the only lake in NH where speed needs to be regulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).
Which one of your skills lets you know how I feel? I won't challenge your credibility however that is one heck of an impressive skill. You also know how these "few" with fast boats feel. Wow.

Please note: I am NOT one of the "few" with a boat that travels at or over 45 mph (Let me qualify that to close any legal loopholes - My boat can go over 45mph downhill or when it's on the trailer towed behind a truck on the road) but it does not even get to 40 mph at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) on the Lake.
Since you are not one of the "few" I was talking about - my post had nothing at all to do with your feelings.

And I never stated that all high-speed boaters feel this way. But that was the impression that I got at listening to the anti-speed limit testimonies at the House Committee Hearing. It was very much about the "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes (and at this point in time the bill still covered all NH lakes) - it was not just about winni.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
We'll just stop this one right here....your opinions of boating at high speeds are just that - opinions and cannot be portrayed as facts in a logical arguement.
What are you taking about? Opinions are often weighed in logical arguments - many court cases are decided on factoring in opinions as well as fact. It is a fact that the operators of those boats violated my 150 foot zone by a considerable amount - remember, I do have a witness, whose space was also violated. And, if it was possible to ask those operators, I am nearly certain that they would say that they didn't see us until the last second. My opinion in this case is backed up by my observations.

Quote:
I heard it from the kid working a gas dock who spoke with an MP earlier that weekend.
So it is merely hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted as evidence in court.

Quote:
In all honestly, it holds about the same water (no pun intended) as Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski and his report on cars and boats in Miami.
If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rick35 View Post
The last thing I intended when I started this thread was to get redirected to another pointless discussion on speed limits.
Rick, this is the Speed Limit Sub-Forum - so you really can't expect the speed limit not to enter into posts here.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 03:31 PM   #81
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
The fact remains that you misquoted me. Please get your facts straight next time, before you accuse me of stating something that I didn't.
Evenstar, I did not misquote anything. My post did not specify on which particular body of water your "incident" happened. I already made that clear in my last post as well. I knew it was Squam as I remember the original posting.

Maybe you should be the one to get it right before correcting me...
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 03:43 PM   #82
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."
Here's what happens when you rely on 12 year old national stats to prove your point. First off, according to COMDTPUB P16754.10 in 1996 there were 8,026 boating accidents nationwide, not 5,174.

Ten years later in 2006 that number had dropped from 8,026 boating accidents to 4,967 according to COMDTPUB P16754.20

In the same time period the US saw an increase in the number of Registered boats of 358,184 from 11,877,938 to 12,746,126. So of 12,746,126 registered boats 4,967 were involved in reportable accidents in 2006. I'll let you do the percentage.

The number of registered boats does NOT include documented and unregistered vessels which according to one estimate in 1996 was about 8,000,000. I could not find an estimate of documented and unregistered vessels for 2006.

So with more boats there were nearly half the number of accidents in 2006 as compared to 1996.

Now, what does all this mean for Lake Winnipesaukee and a former CWO of a Coast Guard station in Florida's statements?

Absolutely nothing!

Last edited by Airwaves; 07-13-2008 at 03:46 PM. Reason: spelling
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 05:39 PM   #83
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
Evenstar, I did not misquote anything. My post did not specify on which particular body of water your "incident" happened. I already made that clear in my last post as well. I knew it was Squam as I remember the original posting.

Maybe you should be the one to get it right before correcting me...
You clearly misquoted me, and you know it. The least you can do is be man enough to admit your error. You can deny it all you want, but you did indeed misquote me when you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?
You wrote that I said that the guy flew by - implying that the guy was going fast. I never wrote that.

I clearly stated that they guy who swamped us was likely going slower than 40 mph and that he intentionally violated our 150 foot zone. How is that particular incident a contridiction (which is what you are suggesting) to my statements that speeding boats have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone? The two are totally different incidents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
Here's what happens when you rely on 12 year old national stats to prove your point. First off, according to COMDTPUB P16754.10 in 1996 there were 8,026 boating accidents nationwide, not 5,174.
Here's what happens when you don't read a quote carefully:
Here's my quote again: "In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide." Of course there will be a smaller number for just boating collisions, since all boating accidents would also include non-collisions.

And, no matter how you try to dance around it, it is still a fact that "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”

Slower speeds = less collisions = a safer lake for everyone.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 06:11 PM   #84
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 Evenstar
Here's what happens when you don't read a quote carefully:
Here's my quote again: "In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide." Of course there will be a smaller number for just boating collisions, since all boating accidents would also include non-collisionsAnd, no matter how you try to dance around it, it is still a fact that "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”

Slower speeds = less collisions = a safer lake for everyone.
Here’s the funny thing, I still can’t come up with your former CWO’s number for 1996.

Looking at the USCG Statistics for 1996 there were 3,422 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object.

In 2006 the USCG Statistics show 2019 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object and for last year that figure was 2030

Your point that collisions are reduced as speed is reduced doesn’t hold up to the statistics. The statistics show as boater education increases accidents including collisions decrease.

BTW it also shows a rise in deaths associated with canoes and kayaks between 2006 and 2007 from 99 to 107!

http://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm

Be careful of those SUV's speeding down Meredith Bay!

Last edited by Airwaves; 07-13-2008 at 09:21 PM. Reason: Corrected the URL
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 06:36 PM   #85
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
Here’s the funny thing, I still can’t come up with your former CWO’s number for 1996. Looking at the USCG Statistics for 1996 there were 3,422 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object. In 2006 the USCG Statistics show 2019 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object and for last year that figure was 2030.
Your link doesn't work, and the online USCG accident statistics only go back to 1997, so I really would like to know where you are getting statistics for 1996.

Quote:
Your point that collisions are reduced as speed is reduced doesn’t hold up to the statistics. The statistics show as boater education increases accidents including collisions decrease.
Is it not MY point, the point was made by a USCG officer.

How does the fact that boater education decreases the number of collisions prove that that number of colisions do not increase as speed increases????

Quote:
BTW it also shows a rise in deaths associated with canoes and kayaks between 2006 and 2007 from 99 to 107!
And what exactly does that have to do with speed and collisions??? How many of those deaths were in rivers - in white water?
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 08:28 PM   #86
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Sorry, my mistake this is the correct link:
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm
If you open the stats for 1997 you will find that it includes material from 1996.

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
How does the fact that boater education decreases the number of collisions prove that that number of colisions do not increase as speed increases????
The only things that can really be compared between 1996 and 2006 or 2007 is the number of boaters that took safe boating education classes either on a voluntary or mandatory basis increased, the number of registered boats increased, and the number of accidents and collisions decreased.

The number of states imposing a speed limit did not skyrocket and the only speed limit recognized by the USCG is excessive speed as defined by Rule 6 and under Rule 6 excessive speed could mean 5mph or 100mph depending upon conditions.

Even your favorite CWO says that as the number of boaters that take a NASBLA approved boating course incresease the number of boating accidents decreases.

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
Quote:
Originally posted by Airwaves
BTW it also shows a rise in deaths associated with canoes and kayaks between 2006 and 2007 from 99 to 107!
And what exactly does that have to do with speed and collisions??? How many of those deaths were in rivers - in white water?
My point about the high number of deaths associated with canoes and kayaks is directly related to the fact that canoeists (is that a word?) and kayakers routinely do NOT take NASBLA safe boating courses. Therefor a lack of safe boating knowledge and practice, not speed, once again is linked.

NASBLA itself has begun looking into developing some kind of course for kayakers and canoeists because of the increasing popularity of the sport coupled witih the increasing number of deaths.

BTW, I tried to see what the percentage of registered boats involved in collisions were in 1996 vs 2006, unfortunately my calculator isn't strong enough, the number came up 0.00 both times.
********************************
Okay, I found another calculator. So in 1996, with 3,422 collisions involving 11,877,938 registered boats in the U.S. the percentage of registered boats involved in a collision appears to be: 0.000293653%.
In 2006 with 2,019 collisions involving 12,746,126 registered boats in the U.S. the percentage looks like 0.000158401%!

As I said, what does the collision rate nationally have to do with Lake Winnipesaukee? NOTHING

Last edited by Airwaves; 07-13-2008 at 10:18 PM. Reason: New calculations
Airwaves is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:11 AM   #87
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,544
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
You clearly misquoted me, and you know it. The least you can do is be man enough to admit your error. You can deny it all you want, but you did indeed misquote me when you wrote:

You wrote that I said that the guy flew by - implying that the guy was going fast. I never wrote that.

I clearly stated that they guy who swamped us was likely going slower than 40 mph and that he intentionally violated our 150 foot zone. How is that particular incident a contridiction (which is what you are suggesting) to my statements that speeding boats have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone? The two are totally different incidents.
I misquoted nothing. You are reading deeper into my post than needed, coming up with your own deductions on what I was implying. "Flying" is a pretty basic word and does not specify a specific speed in the context I used it in. Give it a rest. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than sit around and ponder this?

What it comes down to is if you are that scared to be on Winnipesaukee, there are plenty of other bodies of water to play on. Nobody is telling you to leave or limit your activities, yet you choose to try to limit others. Other than a kayak being hit at night that had no lights and no right to be out there at that time, when was the last kayaker or canoer hit (during daylight hours) in NH??? Are you truly in danger??? Doubt it.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:57 AM   #88
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
If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."
Please accept my apology on this one. I thought we were talking about a specific body of water with rules and regulations for safe passage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
What are you taking about? Opinions are often weighed in logical arguments - many court cases are decided on factoring in opinions as well as fact. It is a fact that the operators of those boats violated my 150 foot zone by a considerable amount - remember, I do have a witness, whose space was also violated. And, if it was possible to ask those operators, I am nearly certain that they would say that they didn't see us until the last second. My opinion in this case is backed up by my observations.
You were trying to validate your logic using 4 points. Your first point stated that boaters travelling over 45 MPH are "travelling faster that their ability to see". Since using this in a logical arguement is completely subjective, it renders it essentially false and opinion-based.

Since your opinions could be used in court cases, let's bring this to the courtroom.
[Hypothetical Court Case]
I'm an attorney. You are on the stand:

ME: When was the last time you were in command of a motorized vessel at 45 MPH?
ES: Never
ME: While you were in command of this vessel, did you have any issues spotting smaller, non-motorized objects?
ES: {no response}
ME: No further questions your honor.
[/Hypothetical Court Case]

We also know that you have no concept of what it is like to navigate at 45MPH, regardless of how long your kayak is, what color you're wearing, or any of the super powers you've been gifted.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:59 AM   #89
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 codeman671 View Post
I misquoted nothing. You are reading deeper into my post than needed, coming up with your own deductions on what I was implying. "Flying" is a pretty basic word and does not specify a specific speed in the context I used it in. Give it a rest. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than sit around and ponder this?
Like I stated, you are not man enough to admit that you made a mistake and misquoted me. Apparently you feel that you have to resort to misquoting someone, in order to try to discredit them, when you can't out debate them.

Quote:
What it comes down to is if you are that scared to be on Winnipesaukee, there are plenty of other bodies of water to play on. Nobody is telling you to leave or limit your activities, yet you choose to try to limit others. Other than a kayak being hit at night that had no lights and no right to be out there at that time, when was the last kayaker or canoer hit (during daylight hours) in NH??? Are you truly in danger??? Doubt it.
I am not scared to be on winni, if I was I wouldn't kayak there. But I am concerned with my safety there and more concerned for the safety of all paddlers on NH lakes that don't have speed limits.

It does not take a fatality to prove that allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds is an unsafe policy. My friend and I have have enough close calls with high-speed power boats to know that we have been in danger. And so have many other paddlers and other boaters. The fact remains that close calls are happening way too often - eventually there will be a fatality, and then perhaps you'll finally see the danger.

If the main lake is so safe for paddlers, then why won't you or any other member of this forum take me up on my offer to join me kayaking on it? My offer still stands.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 11:18 AM   #90
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
Please accept my apology on this one. I thought we were talking about a specific body of water with rules and regulations for safe passage.
What we were specifically talking about was that statement: "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”
If this is true nationally, it also applies to winni as well as to every other large body of water in NH. Boats on Winni are not magically exempt from statictics, just because you and others here want it to be.

Quote:
You were trying to validate your logic using 4 points. Your first point stated that boaters travelling over 45 MPH are "travelling faster that their ability to see". Since using this in a logical arguement is completely subjective, it renders it essentially false and opinion-based.
Again, I stated that SOME boaters are traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time. It is therefor your burden to prove that this is not true for any boaters. Do you contend that every single boater who travels at speeds greater than 45 mph is never traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone?

Quote:
We also know that you have no concept of what it is like to navigate at 45MPH.
And how do you KNOW that? Do YOU have super powers? Just because I'm a kayaker doesn't mean that I don't have any experience with operating a powerboat.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 11:33 AM   #91
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
What we were specifically talking about was that statement: "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”
If this is true nationally, it also applies to winni as well as to every other large body of water in NH. Boats on Winni are not magically exempt from statictics, just because you and others here want it to be.
Actually, Winni is exempt, because we have a safe passage rule. If the safe passage rule did not exist, I would agree 100% that these statistics would also apply to Winni.
As an aside, thank you for getting rid of that posting lag. It keeps me busy at work.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 02:01 PM   #92
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
If the main lake is so safe for paddlers, then why won't you or any other member of this forum take me up on my offer to join me kayaking on it? My offer still stands.
Perhaps people fear you are as tiresome to be around in person as you are on the forum. At least here most people can choose to ignore your tedious repetitive posts or just skim through them. Out on the lake I suppose an iPod would be the only way to escape your lectures and chicken-little routine.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 02:39 PM   #93
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Exclamation Visibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Again, I stated that SOME boaters are traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time. It is therefor your burden to prove that this is not true for any boaters. Do you contend that every single boater who travels at speeds greater than 45 mph is never traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone?
You're asking the wrong question. I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition. Yet we don't post speed limits based on the worst case conditon and the worst case driver. It's expected, demanded, that the driver be reactive to the situation presented to him/her. Neither I nor Ryan have any burden of proof to show that the worst case idiot won't see you in a kayak, laws are made for the reasonable man. What can we as a rule expect or not expect from a reasonable man. We don't make laws so that drunks, nor the careless nor the reckless are "safe" at the stated limit. Speed limits, if needed, should be based on what can a normal person, not Superman but not a 1 eyed drunken 90 year old sailor either, can do. In 30+ years of boating I've yet to have a canoe or kayak pop up from seemingly nowhere in front of me. While kayaks are less visible than boats let's not get carried away here. I can't recall the last time I didn't see a kayak at 1000' distance. That some people don't pay attention means "we" ought to be working to remove those people from the boating public. If the Littlefield case shows anything, it shows just how much time you can give to the careless boater and still end up with a collision.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:43 PM   #94
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 Evenstar View Post
Like I stated, you are not man enough to admit that you made a mistake and misquoted me. Apparently you feel that you have to resort to misquoting someone, in order to try to discredit them, when you can't out debate them.
I am not scared to be on winni, if I was I wouldn't kayak there.
Well, your memory is either very poor or extremely selective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenstar accuses Codeman of not being man enough to admit he made a mistake.Ryan apologizes to Evanstar for his mistake.Evanstar quoted here says she is not scared to be on Winni.Read it yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
What right do you have to use your own definition for MY words to suit yourself!!! I was very specific about what I was writing about and I explained exactly what I meant. I defined my use of the word speeding in that old post, shortly after making it. And I also explained what I meant by the word swamping. (FYI: I bought my sea kayak last June – after I made that “swamping” post. My previous kayak was a day/light touring kayak, and I didn’t even have a spay skirt for that boat.)

Not that it’s any of your business, but I have a documented learning disability due to a severe head injury, which was the result of an accident I was involved in when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damage, so language (especially writing) causes some real problems for me.

I work very hard at being clear in anything that I write. So it really frustrates me when you and others here try to add meanings to my posts that are not even in my words, or when you just ignore my explanations for what I honestly meant when I wrote my posts. I really don’t like being accused of lying or of changing my mind to suit my agenda. If you don’t get it yet my only agenda is safety for paddlers on NH’s lakes, and equal right to use our lakes – without feeling like we’re going to be run over. I'm not anti powerboat, anti PWC, or anti any other kind of boat.

I’ve always been completely open and honest about how much I’ve paddled on Winni. I have said many times that my paddling experience is mostly on other large NH lakes and on the Connecticut River. But HB-162 will affect all NH lakes and rivers.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience in anything than what I actually have.

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:47 PM   #95
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
Actually, Winni is exempt, because we have a safe passage rule. If the safe passage rule did not exist, I would agree 100% that these statistics would also apply to Winni.
NH's 150 foot rule does not make Winni exempt from the statistical fact that the number of collisions between vessels are reduced as speed is reduced. There are still collisions on Winni - yet if the 150 foot rule was followed 100% of the time by 100% of the boaters, collisions would be impossible. But that just isn't so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
Perhaps people fear you are as tiresome to be around in person as you are on the forum. At least here most people can choose to ignore your tedious repetitive posts or just skim through them. Out on the lake I suppose an iPod would be the only way to escape your lectures and chicken-little routine.
It's really obvious that you are outmatched in trying to debate me, since your replies are now nothing more than personal attacks - why don't you follow your own advice and ignore me? Or, better yet, put a paddle where your mouth is and then try to keep up with me - or are you too much of a chicken?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac View Post
I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition. Yet we don't post speed limits based on the worst case conditon and the worst case driver. It's expected, demanded, that the driver be reactive to the situation presented to him/her. Neither I nor Ryan have any burden of proof to show that the worst case idiot won't see you in a kayak, laws are made for the reasonable man. What can we as a rule expect or not expect from a reasonable man.
I am not talking about speeds during bad weather - every close call that I have had on winni has been when visibility has been excellent. A "reasonable man" would not travel at high speeds on a lake that is shared by smaller, slow moving boats. If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - so laws are needed.

Quote:
That some people don't pay attention means "we" ought to be working to remove those people from the boating public.
And how exactly do you do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Evenstar accuses Codeman of not being man enough to admit he made a mistake.Ryan apologizes to Evanstar for his mistake.Evanstar quoted here says she is not scared to be on Winni.Read it yourself.
Look, I have some major language issues, but even I can't see how you come up with the "fact" that I'm supposedly scared to kayak on winni from that quote. If a person has a close call while driving, the incident likely scares them, but that doesn't mean that that person is scared to drive on the highway. There's a big difference between the two.

If you don't get it yet, I'm afraid that I just don't know how to explain it any better. The honest truth is that I am not scared to kayak on winni, if I was, I would not paddle there.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:59 PM   #96
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,818
Thanks: 487
Thanked 526 Times in 301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
It's really obvious that you are outmatched in trying to debate me, since your replies are now nothing more than personal attacks - why don't you follow your own advice and ignore me? Or, better yet, put a paddle where your mouth is and then try to keep up with me - or are you too much of a chicken?
No, you're just not that interesting of a debate partner. Your whole world centers around your fear of kayaking on Winnipesaukee and your misguided thoughts on a "fair" resolution.

I find it mildly amusing that you continue to respond over and over and over again with the same material. My recent posts have just been low-effort attempts to keep you going (thanks for playing).

My disinterest in kayaking with you has more to do with you than with a lack of desire on my part to kayak on the lake. It would serve no purpose to me, other than being a giant time-suck. I spend plenty of time on the lake in my boat, and see many kayakers enjoying the lake along powerboats. I also see boneheaded operators on both types of vessel. I do not need to spend time on the lake with you to know that you are wrong.

I do very much appreciate your invitation though. You seem like a nice girl, a tad bit tightly wound with a touch of tunnel vision, but I'm sure you're tolerable in small doses.
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:11 PM   #97
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Question OK, try this angle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I am not talking about speeds during bad weather - every close call that I have had on winni has been when visibility has been excellent. A "reasonable man" would not travel at high speeds on a lake that is shared by smaller, slow moving boats. If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - so laws are needed.


And how exactly do you do that?
Nor am I talking about speeds in bad weather, apparently you're not understanding the concept of not letting the bozos of the world set the legal limits. Let me try once again. You're applying your own definitions of "high" (wrt speed) and "reasonable" in the above snippet. Your justification that speeds are too "high" and that some (your words) boaters don't see you (again an assumption on your part) in time. How would we determine just how "high" is too high and what's reasonable to expect from a person. Let me argue a hypothetical point just for bit and lets assume the numbers I'll use are true.

If 99.99% of all the boaters you come across see you and react sufficiently then it would be clear to me that it's reasonable to expect that you'll be seen and that the speeds have been sufficiently slow to allow that. If the reverse were true, that say only 10% of the boaters were seeing you and 90% were taking last second evasive action then it would seem that the ability to see and react to your presence is far beyond what I can reasonably expect of a normal human being. So what's the truth on Winni ?

I can't speak for every other boater out there. I can speak for mself and like I said before, kayaks maybe harder to see but that's relative. They are easy enough to see, assuming the Capt (a normal human, not Superman) is paying reasonable and proper attention, so that there's more than enough time to see, comprehend and react to avoid a collision at much higher speeds than your desired 40 mph or the enacted 45 mph. That we don't have scores of runover kayaks and canoes is testimony to this. Is there a speed that above which I can't reasonably expect a normal human to be able to avoid you in a kayak; yes of course. The infamous 130 mph cat would, if run at it's max speed, be going too fast. Were such boats (or even lesser ones) common on the lake I wouldn't have a problem with speed limits.

So to better understand whether you think there's a speed problem or an attention problem let me ask the follwoing questions. What distance do you think you're visible at under the conditions you mentioned above ? Is a boater, running say 60 mph and actually paying attention more likely to see and avoid you or more likely to miss you ?


With regards to your 2'nd point above .... that's a longer response than I have time for but it's worth considering by all parties. But basically the bonehead boaters need to be identified and penalized and that takes more work that a simple speed law but in 10 years I predict people will be clamoring for action along that line because the lake will be full of Capt B's towing kid on tubes ignoring all the commonsense rules and "we" will be asking where all the idiots came from*.

*assuming anyone can afford gas in 10 years. And in case you asked, the idiots come from a society where nothing more than medocrity is expected and excellence is disparaged.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:16 PM   #98
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
NH's 150 foot rule does not make Winni exempt from the statistical fact that the number of collisions between vessels are reduced as speed is reduced. There are still collisions on Winni - yet if the 150 foot rule was followed 100% of the time by 100% of the boaters, collisions would be impossible. But that just isn't so.
Apparently, you do not understand the context of the rule.
Quote:
Boats (including all skicraft* or personal water craft for 3 or more persons) must stay at least 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, floats, marked swimming areas and the shore when traveling above headway speed. When closer than 150 feet a boat must slow to “no wake” or “headway” speed. Maximum headway speed is 6 miles per hour.
It's black and white. If you are within 150 of another vessel, there is already a speed limit to which you must adhere to. Why is this not good enough?

Lastly, if people do not heed the 150' rule, why would they even bother adhering to any sort of speed limit?
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:01 PM   #99
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 Mee-n-Mac View Post
Nor am I talking about speeds in bad weather, apparently you're not understanding the concept of not letting the bozos of the world set the legal limits. Let me try once again.
Excuse me??? But that’s exactly what your post was about! A snowstorm isn’t exactly good driving weather:
Quote:
I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition.
And I understand the concept just fine – I just don’t agree that it applies here – at least not to degree you claim it does. So don’t treat me like I'm an idiot. I might be blonde, but I’m not dumb.

Quote:
You're applying your own definitions of "high" (wrt speed) and "reasonable" in the above snippet. Your justification that speeds are too "high" and that some (your words) boaters don't see you (again an assumption on your part) in time.
No, I’m not. I didn’t state a number in my previous post, all I wrote was “high speed”. I’ll leave it up to the experts to decide what that speed is. Personally I like 40/20 as the limits, but I’m willing to accept slightly higher speeds – if justification can be shown for higher speeds that outweighs the possible danger of those speeds. I do know that unlimited speeds (meaning no speed limit) is not reasonable – and that is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

I can generally tell when boaters who are within my 150 foot zone don’t see us – which is really obvious by their reaction when they do see us. Notice that I wrote “us” – because I’m not the only one there – I have a witness, who saw the same reactions that I did. The only thing we don’t have is video proof – but generally having a reputable witness is enough.

Quote:
So what's the truth on Winni ? I can't speak for every other boater out there. I can speak for mself and like I said before, kayaks maybe harder to see but that's relative. They are easy enough to see, assuming the Capt (a normal human, not Superman) is paying reasonable and proper attention, so that there's more than enough time to see, comprehend and react to avoid a collision at much higher speeds than your desired 40 mph or the enacted 45 mph.
The problem with your hypothetical point is that you neglect that fact (according to most of the anti-speed limit posters here) that only a very small percentage of boaters travel at speeds over 45 mph. Yet members of this tiny percentage of operators, have violated my 150 foot zone way too often when I’ve kayaked on winni. So, it would appear that visibility is a major problem with boaters who are traveling at high speeds. BTW, just how much personal experience do you have operating a boat on winni at speeds over 45mph? (which I’m only using since that will be the speed limit next year)

Quote:
That we don't have scores of runover kayaks and canoes is testimony to this.
Yet the number of close calls that people have testified about is evidence that we do indeed have a dangerous problem. Again, lack of a fatal collision between a high-speed boat and a paddler does not prove that there isn’t a danger for paddlers. I’m very thankful that, so far, we’re been very lucky that no one’s been killed this way. But our luck isn’t going to hold out forever.

Again (and I really don’t know why I have to keep repeating myself – if you guys paid a little more attention to what I post, I wouldn’t have to post much at all):
Not every boater pays attention as much as they should.
Not every boater has perfect vision.
The glare from sun and spay can greatly reduce visibility.
Some boaters are impaired to various degrees by the alcohol they have consumed while boating.
Add all those together and we have potentially a major visibility problem.
Add high-speeds to any visibility problem and we have a potentially very dangerous situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Apparently, you do not understand the context of the rule. It's black and white. If you are within 150 of another vessel, there is already a speed limit to which you must adhere to. Why is this not good enough?
Because people are not perfect and boats still collide with other boats and even with islands.

Quote:
Lastly, if people do not heed the 150' rule, why would they even bother adhering to any sort of speed limit?
Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times. Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:14 PM   #100
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
Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times.
How many unintentional 150' rule violations due to poor visibility have resulted in collisions? I'm just curious. I haven't seen a survey on this one.
And don't give some USCG statistic from Miami, or Long Lake or any other lake that does not have such a rule in place to avoid these situations. You can also sort by BWI and delete those as well. Ceteris Paribus statistics are all that I am interested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?
#1 - Irrelevant - If you are concerned for your safety and the safety of paddlers on the lake, night navigation has nothing to do with this arguement.
#2 - In bad taste. I know you're chomping at the bit for the investigators to publicize their findings in hope that it supports your agenda. But let's wait until then before you draw any links.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


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


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

This page was generated in 0.55893 seconds