Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues > Speed Limits
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2006, 08:54 PM   #1
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Post Speed limits back on the agenda?

According to WMUR-TV, the speed limit issue is back on the front burner. Details in this attached story.
Skip is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 09:30 PM   #2
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Let's hope they put their focus on school funding.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:11 PM   #3
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Not even on the stove!

It is a standard speculatory post-election piece.

They didn't quote anyone as saying these things including speed limits are back on the front burner. They just listed items that failed in the last legislative session.

What Lynch did say is that his priorities are education, health care and jobs.

And since PBR wrote that he saw an interview in which he believed Lynch was leaning against speed limits and Lynch said that on his most recent trip to Winnipesaukee is was lack of enforcement of 150' rule that got his attention, I wouldn't get out the crying towels yet.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:25 PM   #4
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Default Ahhhhh, speculation...

Good points Airwaves, but I think the speculation was derived by the WMUR political reporter (Scott Spradling) as he spoke to many of the candidates yesterday.

In my particular case, I spent 15 hours yesterday doing my annual civic duty as Ward Moderator in my particular NH city. During that long day I spent much of the day conversing with a great number of local statehouse democrats that eventually went on to win last night. One of the issues discussed? The speed limit.

The speed limit left a sour taste in many legislators mouths last year, at least according to the legislators I spoke with.

My prediction? Some type of general speed limit regulations will be passed in the upcoming legislative session.

And I suspect it will be one of the first bills filed for quick action early next year!

I suspect we shall see, either way, very soon....


Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:38 PM   #5
Rinkerfam
Senior Member
 
Rinkerfam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 268
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Default

If the Governor's last outing on the lake is the one I'm thinking of, he learned first hand how difficult it is to use radar on the water. He also saw first hand that there are other potential safety problems (which current legislation exists to address) that are more of a genuine concern on the lake. If in fact the Governor's last outing is the one I'm thinking of, then a close friend of mine was at the helm that afternoon. Enough said. Whether or "knot" this will have any final impact on the debate is yet to be seen. One can only hope that common sense will ultimately prevail. I've said it multiple times....educate as opposed to legislate.
__________________
Education is hanging around 'til you've caught on - Frost
Rinkerfam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 11-08-2006, 10:55 PM   #6
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

SKIP! Congrats on going above and beyond in your civic duty!
Quote:
In my particular case, I spent 15 hours yesterday doing my annual civic duty as Ward Moderator in my particular NH city.
As far as the boat speed limit issue in conversation throughout the day;
Quote:
During that long day I spent much of the day conversing with a great number of local statehouse democrats that eventually went on to win last night. One of the issues discussed? The speed limit.
I would certainly expect the speed limit to come up in conversation with a boater, wouldn't you? I think I'd be safe in saying that if my sister was at the polling place with you her conversation would focus on special needs (she has a handicapped child) and I would lay money that boating speed limits would not be mentioned!

Again, good job in being Ward Moderator, folks like you are the unsung heros of keeping democracy alive!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:21 PM   #7
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

This was on WMUR's website.
For the first time in history, New Hampshire Democrats will be in charge of the governor's office, Executive Council, state House and Senate. Democrats last held the governor's office, House and Senate in 1874.

In Lynch's previous term, several issues he supported were narrowly defeated. With all decision-making bodies in Democratic control, they now could pass.

Some of the measures include a minimum wage increase, speed limits on boats, a ban on smoking in restaurants, erasing parental-consent laws and more money for the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:41 PM   #8
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Lynch supports speed limits, or has no opinon?

Again, the WMUR story is a standard speculatory piece. A change in power, what might happen?

As I read it, SIKSUKR implies with his/her post that Lynch supported speed limits in the past.

Paugus Bay Resident posted he/she had seen an interview with Lynch that he was neutral (didn't care one way or the other) but had visited Winnipesaukee and noted that laws on the books were not being enforced.

Be vigilant, and make your case.

IMHO we have new reps and senators who may or may not know the issues. Who gets to them first plays a big role in what might happen.

Good luck and good hunting!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:55 AM   #9
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

Airwaves,I did not mean to imply what Lynch would support.I have no idea what his position is on the bill.I just copied some of the article form the website.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 03:19 PM   #10
winnilaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default From the Union Leader

"Not only do Democrats have the daunting task of running the House for the first time in nearly a century, they have to do it with nearly half of their members having no legislative experience."
winnilaker is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 06:35 PM   #11
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default A citizen legislature!

winnilaker quoting the Union Leader:
Quote:
nearly half of their members having no legislative experience."
What a unique concept, following the idea initiated by our forefathers. Do your civic duty and serve in the legislature, then step down and let someone else bring in new ideas.

How horrible!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 06:10 PM   #12
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

New Hampshire House of Representatives
TRANSPORTATION Committee Mailing List

Jim Ryan
11 Cricket Hill Way
Franklin, NH 03235-2060
Phone: (603)934-2703
email: jryan@metrocast.net

Robert W. Williams
149 East Side Dr #183
Concord, NH 03301-5410
Phone: (603)225-9283
email: robert.williams@leg.state.nh.us

Peter R. Cote
68 Bowers Street
Nashua, NH 03060-3927
Phone: (603)882-9003
email: N/A

Brenda L. Ferland
267 River Road
Charlestown, NH 03603-4139
Phone: (603)826-5034
email: N/A

Jennifer M. Brown
9 Baldwin Way
Dover, NH 03820-4673
Phone: (603)743-0988
email: jennifer.brown@leg.state.nh.us

C. Pennington Brown
153 Old Hedding Road #40
Epping, NH 03042-2348
Phone: (603)679-1766
email: penningtonbrown@comcast.net

Howard N. Cunningham
358 Wentworth Hill Rd
Ctr. Sandwich, NH 03227-3330
Phone: (603)284-7778
email: cunham@worldpath.net

Carole J. Estes
77 Pleasant Street
Plymouth, NH 03264-1114
Phone: (603)536-1274
email: cestes@makeitplain.com

Paul H. Ingersoll Sr.
49 Gordon Avenue
Berlin, NH 03570-1006
Phone: (603)752-4754
email: ingyp@earthlink.net

Maureen A. Nagle
137 Huse Road
Manchester, NH 03103-3000
Phone: (603)622-3047
email: mairin@earthlink.net

Michael B. O'Brien Sr.
4 Woodfield Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2056
Phone: (603)888-8051
email: obnfd@comcast.net

Stephen H. Nedeau
PO Box 436
Meredith, NH 03253-0436
Phone: (603)279-4794
email: N/A

George N. Katsakiores
1 Bradford Street
Derry, NH 03038-4258
Phone: (603)434-9587
email: N/A

Sherman A. Packard
70 Old Derry Road
Londonderry, NH 03053-2218
Phone: (603)432-3391
email: N/A

John W. Flanders Sr.
28 Danville Road
Kingston, NH 03848-3406
Phone: (603)642-3640
email: jwflanders@hotmail.com

Jean-Guy J. Bergeron
184 Marsh Road
Pelham, NH 03076-3354
Phone: (603)635-7005
email: racing71@aol.com

Mary M. Allen
39 Pond Street
Newton, NH 03858-3415
Phone: (603)382-5665
email: N/A

Peter F. Bergin
PO Box 6295
Amherst, NH 03031-6295
Phone: (603)673-1885
email: pfbergin@gmail.com

David C. Dalrymple
7 Penobscot Avenue
Salem, NH 03079-1531
Phone: (603)898-4527
email: N/A
Dave R is offline  
Old 03-17-2007, 07:07 PM   #13
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Does anyone know the outcome of the meeting? I wasn't able to attend but would have liked to be have been there. I am opposed to the speed limit, and did my part in November by ousting the bills sponsor (at least my part in voting against him). More education and less "Captain boneheads" as stated on other replies is exactly what is called for.
EricP is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 01:37 PM   #14
Boater
Senior Member
 
Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Lake Girl
They want to rid certian boats from the lake.
Is Certian a new brand of boat that I have not heard of?

Trying to frame this as a discrimination issue is really ridiculous. Continuously repeating it doesn't make it true. All boats are welcome if they obey the law!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Lake Girl
Your freedoms are being taking away
Also ridiculous! There is no "freedom" to drive a boat at unlimited speed. If driving a car is a privilege why is driving a boat at unlimited speed a right? Is anyone in front of the legislature opposing the speed limit on constitutional grounds? I think they'd be laughed out of there.

FYI: The five freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.

I don't see unlimited speed in there.

Oh ya, better use that spell checker for certian[sic]!
Boater is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:44 PM   #15
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Boater....

Its obvious from your post that you are in favor of a speed limit bill.... But why stop there? After all, last time I checked boating isn't a right guranteed by the US Constition! Boating is a personal freedom!

If you read the accident data from the MP, an argument could be made for eliminating towing tubes, wakeboards and waterskiiers.... after all people DIE doing those activities.

Lets go one more step...

People get hurt in bow rider type boats all the time... in fact two years ago on Lake Opechee a little girl bounced out of bowrider driven by her father and got hit by the propeller and died! We better outlaw them before another little girl suffers that fate!

PWC's & Jetskii's?? Fuggetaboutit.... you'll get killed on one of those! Those are very dangerous machines!

People get hurt driving powerboats. Maybe all powerboats should be outlawed?? YUP! Better get rid of 'em!

Now were down to canoes & kayaks & sailboats.... but wait, look at the report, people drown operating them all the time. In fact they are statistically the most dangerous watercraft out there... better outlaw them too...

When does the insanity end??

According to the US Coast Guard, the average recreational boater uses his boat for 20 days per year, approximately 4 hours each time for a total of 80 hours per year. (This is actually pretty conservative, the Coast Guard number is a bit higher) Here in NH there are over are over 100,000 registered boats! If you do the Math 100,000 boats x 80 hours = 8,000,000 boating hours. This doesn't count canoes, kayaks sailboats and any other unregisterable watercraft. It also doesn't count the number of hours on the water spent by out-of-state registered boats.

In over 8,000,000 boating hours there were only 87 accidents!! Thats .0000109 chance, or 1 boating accident for every 100,000 boating hours. Thats a pretty darn good number by anyones standards.

Of the 87 accidents, there was one accident that occured over the speed of 50 MPH! ONE! There were 6 collisions between boats and none of those occured at a speed greater than 30 MPH!

If you look at the FACTS and not the emotional rhetoric, there is absolutely no basis for a speed limit in NH. Personal Freedoms should be foaught for and cherished, not frittered away by a waterfront fproperty owners special interest group...

Woodsy

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:50 PM   #16
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boater
....
FYI: The five freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.

I don't see unlimited speed in there....
Read the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because a right is not listed, doesn't mean you and I don't have it.

And Article 2 of the NH Constitution guarantees me a few more rights:

All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

Now to be fair, Article 3 says that I might have to give up some of those rights:

When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

Which is why you probably cant fight speed limits on constitutional grounds.
jrc is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 04:11 PM   #17
Gavia immer
Senior Member
 
Gavia immer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Post

"Enjoying and defending life and liberty" sounds like perfect constitutional grounds FOR limiting speeders.
Gavia immer is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 04:39 PM   #18
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default The constitution plays both ways

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavia immer
"Enjoying and defending life and liberty" sounds like perfect constitutional grounds FOR limiting speeders.
Safely speeding along at 80 miles per hour in a bass boat is enjoying for some, and having the liberty to do so is what is being fought for. On the other hand, some people are fearful that fast boats will run into them, and may invoke the constitution to limit others liberty so that they can enjoy a life free of this specific fear. Much of the discussion has been around the fear of being hit versus the reality of being hit by a boat going over 45 (or 25 at night). The reality is that you have a greater chance of being injured by the wake of a large boat going slowly than by any boat going fast. Who has more rights? Those who are safely going very fast or those who suffer from real, but perhaps unfounded, fear?
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 05:19 PM   #19
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Smile Rights versus privileges....

Interesting debate on the possibility of constitutional ramifications playing in to the speed limit proposal.

However just as there is no constitutional “right” to operate a motor vehicle on a public way there is also no constitutional right to operate a watercraft on publicly owned and controlled waterways. The ability to operate a motor vehicle or a boat upon a way is a privilege controlled by the government. And the government has the ability to grant, revoke and heavily regulate those privilege, much to the chagrin of more than a few!
Skip is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 06:47 PM   #20
Island Life
Senior Member
 
Island Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 273
Thanks: 12
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I laugh to think what the founding fathers would say about some of the uses for which the Constitution has been invoked.
__________________
Island Life the way my grandparents' grandparents enjoyed it - but with a faster boat!!!
Island Life is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 10:24 PM   #21
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,813
Thanks: 1,011
Thanked 878 Times in 513 Posts
Default Omg

OK OK..... This is getting way to ridiculous.... THe Constitution????? what are you people thinking about..... I will admit there is plenty to argue about here....but the Constitution has no play here.... You people need to realize one thing a hundred years ago these same arguements where probably being made about those great horseless carriages.... Why? because times where changing and evolution is a scary thing.... but lets face it boating has changed some for the good some for the bad. It is because of the bad that we are in the current situation. Every year the boats get faster... well what we are now seeing is that people are taking a stand on what they feel is fast enough. Just like with cars. And to take a step back the last time there where arguements with boats like this it was over noise polution, and sure enough the law was but on the books, just like it will eventually for this as well... We can either fight it kicking and screaming or we can help shape it. I think the idea of setting up a couple of Trial speed zone this summer is the right thing to do.... And instead of fuss and scream about the injustice of it all everyone should be standing up and telling the transportation committee that the trail zones are the way to go. Then we can see weather or not it is enforcable, and how many people are really going that fast. In short we can let the statistic show us where to go with this. I mean if the MP goes an entire summer and doesn't write any tickets, then well maybe the law isn't so worth while. But if they write several tickets, and they hold up in court, well then that leads us somewhere else. My hope would be that the state finds that they control speed in restricted area of the lake, and therefore just like the roads have speed zones.... and leave areas like the broads wide open.

In short leave the constitution out of this... and be prepared because weather we like it or not there will most likely be a speed limit sooner or later.....


(now um just let me say one thing.... I am a speed freak.... and I realize this is comming.... what I hope is to save area's like the Broads.... for all out excitemtent)
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 04:51 AM   #22
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Life
I laugh to think what the founding fathers would say about some of the uses for which the Constitution has been invoked.
1) Today's New Hampshire residents outnumber the population of all thirteen colonies—from Maine to Georgia—when George Washington was in the Colonial Army!

2) Wolfeboro and the rest of Carroll County is known to be the fastest-growing region in this state in the last decade.

3) New Hampshire continues to grow at 14,000 residents a year—with an increasing number being a crush of retirees to the Lakes Region.

Perhaps it is retirees who look askance at the increasing horsepower, size, and speeds of boats today—and a collision in recent memory that took one of their number.

From the viewpoint of 50+ years on Lake Winnipesaukee, it was inevitable that the money pouring onto this lake would eventually result in this bill.
__________________
Every MP who enters Winter Harbor will pass by my porch of 67 years...
ApS is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 09:17 AM   #23
Boater
Senior Member
 
Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Its obvious from your post that you are in favor of a speed limit bill....
Actually Woodsy, you'd be wrong. I used to be for it but some of the opinions posted here helped changed my mind. I agree that the absence of high-speed accidents demonstrates that a 45 mph speed limit is unjustified.

I may have changed my mind but I'm not a Kool Aid drinker. I understand the safety concerns that many express and won't disregard or insult them. I must say that some of the anti-speed limit posters here and elsewhere really come off as arrogant and selfish and some of their arguments are just nonsense (IMHO).

But geez Woodsy, it doesn't take much for you to get up on your soap box and regurgitate the same old hyperbole. Give it a rest! It looks like you are the one getting emotional.

My only point was that there are some convincing arguments that can be made against a speed limit. I just think that "discrimination" and "freedom" are not effective ones.
Boater is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 10:37 AM   #24
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,125
Thanks: 198
Thanked 417 Times in 237 Posts
Question What does success look like?

When I put fertilizer on my lawn I expect, within a period of time, for my grass to be greener, thicker, and more robust. If my car is making a funny noise and I take it to a mechanic, when I get it back I expect the noise to be gone. When I order a steak medium-well I expect it lightly charred on the outside and pink on the inside.

So if we institute speed limits on the lake what will success look like?

We can't measure through accident statistics because there are almost no high speed accidents.

We might try to measure the number of speeding tickets issued but if you look at the Lake George (a commonly sited speed limit success story) Marine patrol report for 2005 there were no tickets issued to PWCs for speeds in excess of the 45 MPH limit in 2004 or 2005. None, zip, nada. (There were No Wake speeding violations but that is something we already can do). The report doesn't break out speeding tickets for other types of vessels so we could only speculate about those. So will we see any speeding tickets issued? How many tickets need to be issued before the lake is "safer"?

Will we see less congestion, especially around popular areas?

Will people who cut us off and ignore safety laws and courtesy now behave better? How will we tell? Will we see "Boy Scout" boats escorting other boats across busy crossing areas?

Will the camp swimmers and canoeists be safe in the water with boats going 40 MPH instead of 60 MPH?

Will the boats battered by wakes of other boats cutting too close to them now have smooth sailing?


Will we also reckon the possible costs?

If someone is injured or killed in a reckless skiing or tubing accident will we attribute that cost to the fact that the Marine Patrol was too busy passing out speeding tickets in the Broads to observe the reckless behavior and put a stop to it?


As to the constitution, hasn't anyone seen the powerboat clause?
Many of the framers of the constitution were worried about government interfering without just cause. The Bill of Rights and other amendments were established to specify certain important rights but the overall message was for government to keep their hands off. Unfortunately, as time goes by, we cede more and more "rights" to our various governments.

I have no problem with a "trial" period and location for speed limit enforcement, especially in areas that most reasonable people would probably be going slow anyway. However, what is a "successful trial"?? And how would success in the trial lead to?
jeffk is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 07:12 PM   #25
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Just checked the NH General Court website for any info on HB 847 and nothing new has been posted. Today March 21, the Transporation Committee is supposedly going to make its' vote to either recommend, not recommend or retain. I think this decision, all by itself, will have a big impact on the bill. Now that the Dems have a slight majority (9 Dems-8 Repubs-1 Indy, or something like that?) it is impossible to predict.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 07:22 PM   #26
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Default Retained....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
Just checked the NH General Court website for any info on HB 847 and nothing new has been posted. Today March 21, the Transporation Committee is supposedly going to make its' vote to either recommend, not recommend or retain. I think this decision, all by itself, will have a big impact on the bill. Now that the Dems have a slight majority (9 Dems-8 Repubs-1 Indy, or something like that?) it is impossible to predict.
Rumor on the street is the Committee voted 10-6 to retain the bill. If so, it appears that the test zones proposed by Safety may be a "go" this summer. It will be interesting, to say the least!

UPDATE: 9:00 PM
According to the latest update of the General Court's bill tracking website, HB 847 was officially reatined in Committee effective today's date.

Last edited by Skip; 03-20-2007 at 08:04 PM.
Skip is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 08:40 PM   #27
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default ...for him, he deserves a new boat!

Dick Flynn deserves a new boat! For doing what he did, for accomplishing the unaccomplishable, for postponing the dreaded speed limits, Dick Flynn should putt putt putt......no, make that.....vrrrrmm vrrrmmm vrrrrmmm...into his retirement in whatever Baja, Fountain, Formula, Sea Ray, Cobalt or Doral that he likes.

What do you say NH Marine Trades Assoc, does Commissioner Flynn get a new go-fast or what?

Let's just get it shuffled away for a year and hope it stays away forever.

I know.....no one has any comment. No comment, thankyou very much.

Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-21-2007 at 08:00 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 11:22 PM   #28
Island Girl
Senior Member
 
Island Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,352
Thanks: 18
Thanked 535 Times in 179 Posts
Red face What does RETAINED IN COMMITTEE mean?

Pardon my ignorance of legislative terminology, but what exactly does "retained in committee" mean?

Thanks
IG
__________________
Island Girl

....... Make Lemonade
Island Girl is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 05:18 AM   #29
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Default Retained in Committee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Girl
Pardon my ignorance of legislative terminology, but what exactly does "retained in committee" mean?

Thanks
IG
It means that the Bill will not be acted upon again until next year.

From the current legislative session's House Rules:

44...(c) All bills retained in committee for action shall be acted on during the second-year session.

The New Hampshire State Legislature is in it's first year of a two year legislative phase. HB 847 was introduced during this initial annual session. The Committee decided to "retain" it this year which allows for action to resume next year at it's second annual session.
Skip is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 07:30 AM   #30
Rayhunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gilford NH
Posts: 112
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
Dick Flynn deserves a new boat! For doing what he did, for accomplishing the unaccomplishable, for postponing the dreaded speed limits, Dick Flynn should putt putt putt......no, make that.....vrrrrmm vrrrmmm vrrrrmmm...into his retirement in whatever Baja, Fountain, Formula, Sea Ray, Cobalt or Doral that he likes.

What do you say NH Marine Trades Assoc does Commissioner Flynn get a new go-fast or what?

I know.....no one has any comment. No comment, thankyou very much.
Why would you slander someone for doing their job? He obviously sees the speed limit for what it is.. "Feel good legislation" Thank You Mr Flynn
Rayhunt is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 07:38 AM   #31
SBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NH fresh waters and forests
Posts: 72
Thanks: 12
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
Dick Flynn deserves a new boat! For doing what he did, for accomplishing the unaccomplishable, for postponing the dreaded speed limits, Dick Flynn should putt putt putt......no, make that.....vrrrrmm vrrrmmm vrrrrmmm...into his retirement in whatever Baja, Fountain, Formula, Sea Ray, Cobalt or Doral that he likes.

What do you say NH Marine Trades Assoc does Commissioner Flynn get a new go-fast or what?

I know.....no one has any comment. No comment, thankyou very much.

Pine River Pond is not a real good place to GFBL. How about a nice little sport-fish runabout?
SBC is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 10:06 AM   #32
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,176
Thanks: 659
Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts
Thumbs down

Why not take the shotgun approach? There are bills pending to ban cell phone use and mandate seatbelt use. Might as well enforce these laws for boats as well as the speed limit.

Why don't we all just sit home and be safe from the dangerous world...speeding boats, motorcycle riders with no helmets, cell phones, smokers and global warming - isn't that what the government, insurance companies, liberals (and media for that matter) want? What a joke this state is becoming.
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 11:14 AM   #33
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Default Pilot speed zones likely according to MP

From today's on-line edition of the Laconia based Citizen, coverage of the Transportation Committee's decision to retain and the prospect of trial speed zones on the Lake this summer.

From the pages of the CITIZEN!
Skip is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 11:16 AM   #34
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

The proposed speed limit in HB847 would not take effect until 2008 anyway.

So we will have speed limits a year earlier.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 02:03 PM   #35
Senter Cove Guy
Senior Member
 
Senter Cove Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 593
Thanks: 280
Thanked 427 Times in 139 Posts
Default

GFBL boats will avoid the 2 areas. My prediction is that there will be no speeding arrests made during the trial. MP officers will spend a lot of time radaring boats going below the speed limit. I see very little meaningful data coming out of this “project”.

As an afterthought, this will help support that fact that we don't need a speed limit law on Winnipesaukee or anyplace else.
__________________
Lake Winni - The only place I want to be during the summer.
Senter Cove Guy is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 02:06 PM   #36
Rayhunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gilford NH
Posts: 112
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senter Cove Guy
GFBL boats will avoid the 2 areas. My prediction is that there will be no speeding arrests made during the trial. MP officers will spend a lot of time radaring boats going below the speed limit. I see very little meaningful data coming out of this “project”.
I didnt know speeding was an arrestable offence..
Or perhaps thats what proponents would like it to be
Rayhunt is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 02:14 PM   #37
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senter Cove Guy
GFBL boats will avoid the 2 areas. My prediction is that there will be no speeding arrests made during the trial. MP officers will spend a lot of time radaring boats going below the speed limit. I see very little meaningful data coming out of this “project”.
Agreed, and so hopefully the whole thing goes away. I wish it would go away now instead of waiting another year, more of a copout by our reps. Hold over = lazy IMHO
EricP is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 04:24 PM   #38
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default

Seaplane, you are correct about this State becoming a JOKE. I truly believe it is from all the out of states moving here because they once came up and really enjoyed their vacation. Now, they have moved up here and brought up all their bad attitudes that they are trying to move away from. If they would have just came up here and excepted the NEW HAMPSHIRE life style, and left their old baggage where the moved from!
Yes I am a native of the Lakes Region, and Yes it it very obvious to anyone who has lived here all their life.
topwater is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 05:02 PM   #39
Rayhunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gilford NH
Posts: 112
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater
Seaplane, you are correct about this State becoming a JOKE. I truly believe it is from all the out of states moving here because they once came up and really enjoyed their vacation. Now, they have moved up here and brought up all their bad attitudes that they are trying to move away from. If they would have just came up here and excepted the NEW HAMPSHIRE life style, and left their old baggage where the moved from!
Yes I am a native of the Lakes Region, and Yes it it very obvious to anyone who has lived here all their life.
been here my entire life and you are 100% correct.. Things are changing for the worse!
Why would you come to a place where you "get away from it all" and try and make it like the one you left ?
Leave it alone
Rayhunt is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 07:41 PM   #40
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayhunt
Why would you come to a place where you "get away from it all" and try and make it like the one you left ?
Because they're done destroying where they came from and are looking to "new frontiers"
Cal is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 09:53 AM   #41
Gavia immer
Senior Member
 
Gavia immer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Question Kill Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senter Cove Guy
GFBL boats will avoid the 2 areas. My prediction is that there will be no speeding arrests made during the trial. MP officers will spend a lot of time radaring boats going below the speed limit. I see very little meaningful data coming out of this “project”.
I wonder about that. Before the hearing, a reluctant Director complained that he needed $160,000 for training and radar for 2008.

In the middle of the hearing, the Director becomes pro-active and volunteers the funds a full year earlier than was necessary!

"Data" from the Director's project will become a new form of art. IMHO, this tax-funded project was designed as a bill-killer.
Gavia immer is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 10:32 AM   #42
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Gavia...


You got it a bit wrong....

Director Barrett probably has the budget to train one or possibly two of his full time officers at most. Radar Certification takes about 8 hours or so... He is already in possession of a couple of radar guns, so getting them calibrated is probably not all that expensive. Its one thing to have the $$$ to fund a pilot program on Lake Winnipesaukee... its a whole other ball game if its a state-wide law.


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

Last edited by Woodsy; 03-22-2007 at 11:32 AM.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 11:13 AM   #43
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Topwater, couldn't agree with you more.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 03-22-2007, 11:15 AM   #44
Rayhunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Gilford NH
Posts: 112
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavia immer
I wonder about that. Before the hearing, a reluctant Director complained that he needed $160,000 for training and radar for 2008.

In the middle of the hearing, the Director becomes pro-active and volunteers the funds a full year earlier than was necessary!

"Data" from the Director's project will become a new form of art. IMHO, this tax-funded project was designed as a bill-killer.
Lets see ..we have no facts that support our liberal ideaology so lets go with the standard conspiracy theory
Rayhunt is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 01:38 PM   #45
bbarrell
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot
Why not take the shotgun approach? There are bills pending to ban cell phone use and mandate seatbelt use. Might as well enforce these laws for boats as well as the speed limit.

Why don't we all just sit home and be safe from the dangerous world...speeding boats, motorcycle riders with no helmets, cell phones, smokers and global warming - isn't that what the government, insurance companies, liberals (and media for that matter) want? What a joke this state is becoming.
Couldn't agree with you more there!

After getting some additional info on what 'retaining a bill' means....I thought I'd pass this on:
This means 2 45 mph speed zones pilots will likely be implemented in small lake areas near the islands (fine with me) and leave all other NH lakes and the majority of Winni unaffected. Also, this bill is done for 2007 so it can be re-addressed with the supporting MP evidence in 2008 and a more educated decision could then be made by the legislature that would affect boating in 2009. So I think it's a nice compromise and I'm eager to see if there really is a 'speed issue' as I suspect the MP will find themselves giving out a lot of safe passage tickets but rarely speeding ones.

As for Director Barrett, I support the MP and think he's making a wise decision here. If the bill was passed as is, it would be very costly for the state and no fiscal note (funding) was attached. Guess what.....I don't want it coming out of my tax money so I'm glad the government isn't rushing off and purchasing dozens of radar guns and investing in training. It isn't going make the lake any safer in my opinion.
bbarrell is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 01:50 PM   #46
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

When the bill is voted on in a year it will still be dated for enactment in 2008. The year delay in the vote does not necessarily mean a year delay in enactment.

I am told the reason the committee was so quick to delay the vote was because it would not change the effective date.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 02:01 PM   #47
bbarrell
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
When the bill is voted on in a year it will still be dated for enactment in 2008. The year delay in the vote does not necessarily mean a year delay in enactment.

I am told the reason the committee was so quick to delay the vote was because it would not change the effective date.
Island Lover, you could double check with the committe on that (perhaps email the chairman?) but my understanding was any decision made on HB847 would come too late to affect 2008 season. The bill comes up for discussion again in the trans. committee in March of 2008. They would likely be working with MP this fall to review data. In spring of 2008, the trans. committee must vote again (ITL, or edit/pass). Then it goes to the full house vote a couple months later, then if passed there must go to Senate vote over the summer, then must be signed by the gov. So, it would likely not affect the lakes until 2009 in my opinion.....but I should state I'm no expert. Just passing on what I heard from one of the legislators who's familar with how retainment works.

I would guess the committee just didn't want to make a call on it yet if they have the chance to review relevant DOS data in the fall.
bbarrell is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 08:02 PM   #48
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Smile Bills that are Referred to Committee:

The House Transportation Committee can vote on HB 847 at anytime - they don't have to wait until next spring (but they will most likely wait until the next session begins). It's my understanding that this bill will not be brought to the full House vote until the next legislative session, which begins next Jan. Once a Bill passes the House, it can go to the Senate anytime, but most House Bills won't be brought before the Senate until after crossover (on April 15th).

As far as the date that the Bill goes into effect - that will remain as Jan 1, 2008; unless the Bill gets passed with an amendment which changes the Effective Date. This date will likely change, but they could easily amend it to be "upon passage", which could easily be by next summer.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-27-2007, 12:46 PM   #49
bbarrell
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

This bill has been officially 'retained in committee' for the 2007 session so no further action can be taken on it this year. Pending the outcome of the MP findings and what the committee then recommends for the bill next year.... it's true that the bill could possibly be fast tracked thru the 2008 process and voted on by Senate in the summer for enactment 'upon passage'. Doubtful in my opinion the legistation would do that though since that would leave no time for MP to purchase the necessary equipment, train the personnel, put up the speed zone signs, and get the funding (since no fiscal note was attached to the bill), etc. But our government works in mysterious ways....so one never knows exactly how this will work.
bbarrell is offline  
 

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 -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.40382 seconds