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

View Poll Results: What do you feel the ideal Speed Limit Compromise would be?
Unlimited (as in the past) 78 29.66%
Current Law (25 night, 45 day) 46 17.49%
Current Law - Broads Unlimited 52 19.77%
Compromised MPH example 65 Day, 30 night 69 26.24%
Distance rule. Example: unlimited over 300ft, 500, 1000 etc. 18 6.84%
Voters: 263. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-19-2009, 04:26 PM   #1
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default Speed Limit Compromise Poll

Trying to get a feel for a number on what people would actually like.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 06:31 AM   #2
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 211 Times in 87 Posts
Default

I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above". I think the two year cycle should run its course and then be true to the original process.....

The intent of the SL law is being compromised already so proposing a compromise on a compromised situation will never end with the group that is controlling all the cards. IMHO
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 06:45 AM   #3
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above". I think the two year cycle should run its course and then be true to the original process.....

The intent of the SL law is being compromised already so proposing a compromise on a compromised situation will never end with the group that is controlling all the cards. IMHO
I agree with you that they should finish what they started the 2 year trial period. But if they are going to start pushing for it to be made permanent now then we need to find a compromise. The all or nothing apparently will not work on either side.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 08:10 AM   #4
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,058
Thanks: 215
Thanked 893 Times in 505 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above".
That would the first choice in the poll.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 10:23 AM   #5
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

So looking at the numbers so far, the vast majority are for limits but in a less conservative manner. I thought that there would have been more supporters.. Maybe that will increase.

It is funny though looking at it you have almost and equal amount on either end of the spectrum 9 for none at all and 10 for current law, but the majority are looking for some type of compromise.

Very interesting.

Lets see how it progresses.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 08-20-2009, 10:27 AM   #6
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default option 3

I chose option 3, which I think is he case now anyway.
Current law, with broads unlimited. Does anyone think the current law would be enforced, on a light traffic day, in the broads?
sa meredith is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 10:54 AM   #7
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 211 Times in 87 Posts
Default

The law may look the other way for awhile but you would be surprised how many concerned citizens (ninnies) that interpret laws, personalize them, and will call at the most innocent infraction. I am sure the marine patrol is inundated with reported sightings of terrorist speeders!!!! There may even citizen groups created. They will be assigned to partrol on shifts. Amazing that we are talking about recreation in America....
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 11:33 AM   #8
Island-Ho
Senior Member
 
Island-Ho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 169
Thanks: 15
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Default Option 4

I'd support a modified limit of something like 50 days, 30 nights. 25mph is just too slow to get many hulls up on plane. Of course if decent muffler devices were added to all the GFBL then I would support option 1. How's that for a compromise?
Island-Ho is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 12:02 PM   #9
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,508
Thanks: 94
Thanked 365 Times in 232 Posts
Default

Although I am an opponent of the current law, some of the compromises make perfect sense. I could care less about how fast people go in the broads. What I don't like are the boats that scream between the islands at 80mph on busy days... Even still I see a few fast boats every weekend cutting the corner at the end of Mark and flying through one of the busiest watersports areas on the lake between campers, tubers, skiers, and boarders.

I am fine with no limits as long as patrols are stepped up to prevent safety issues in certain hot spots. I am fine with 65/30, fine with the current law with unlimited in the broads, or similar variations. Something needed to be done, I just don't completely agree with the outcome thus far.

As far as night time, 25-30 is plenty fast. I have certainly made my high speeds broads runs back at night, and sometimes in inclement weather but dont mind dialing it back.

For the record I went current law with broads unlimited.
codeman671 is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-20-2009), robmac (08-21-2009), VtSteve (08-20-2009)
Old 08-20-2009, 01:25 PM   #10
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

anyone want to guess my response?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-20-2009, 01:34 PM   #11
malibu
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Thanks: 21
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Seeing how the current SL has done nothing to make the lake safer on weekends this truly is a compromise. If the original intent was to make the lake safer for everyone, then spend the money more wisely on increased MP and enforce the laws we already have. Captain boneheads will not change if they are never pulled over!!! Speed was never the issue and that still remains the case.

Malibu
malibu is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to malibu For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (08-20-2009)
Old 08-20-2009, 01:43 PM   #12
zantheman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

How about a speed limit only on Sat/Sun and Holidays? That's the way it is on our lake during the day. (nights here are another issue) During the weekdays we are allowed to crank it up as much as we want. I would think (and have experience there) that Winnipesaukee does not get so much weekday traffic that it is dangerous without one.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ
zantheman is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 07:29 AM   #13
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Again I am very intrigued with the results... 61% of the responses show that some type of compromise is preferred...

If you consider who is on this site, in my opinion people who are die hard winnipesaukee fans, this gives you a good indication of those who use the lake regularly really want.

It is a much better poll then that taken via phone to "residents" who may not have ever been to the lake.

I think a lot can be said by this.

Will be interesting to see how it continues.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 08:43 AM   #14
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 2,477
Thanks: 775
Thanked 1,345 Times in 613 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
Again I am very intrigued with the results... 61% of the responses show that some type of compromise is preferred...

If you consider who is on this site, in my opinion people who are die hard winnipesaukee fans, this gives you a good indication of those who use the lake regularly really want.
While the poll is an interesting exercise, you can't make any valid general area wide conclusions from it. Those voting are those that frequent the often contentious speed limits sub-forum, not really a statistically unbiased sample.
Slickcraft is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 08:57 AM   #15
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickcraft View Post
While the poll is an interesting exercise, you can't make any valid general area wide conclusions from it. Those voting are those that frequent the often contentious speed limits sub-forum, not really a statistically unbiased sample.
While I will agree to a point, I will say I personally feel that those voting here have a much better understanding then the general public who may or may not boat at Winni or have ever visted there.

Although you may say that these sub-forums are biased I see plenty of posts in support of the limits so it can go either way.

I think this poll works because it is those who know the area and are directly effected by their impact.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 09:18 AM   #16
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
While I will agree to a point, I will say I personally feel that those voting here have a much better understanding then the general public who may or may not boat at Winni or have ever visted there.

Although you may say that these sub-forums are biased I see plenty of posts in support of the limits so it can go either way.

I think this poll works because it is those who know the area and are directly effected by their impact.
You're missing a huge sampling of people who have a stake in the lake and are indeed its owners/stewards...whether they be swimmers, people who don't own lakefront but hear the noise, older people who may not be as computer literate as you, people who kayak, etc., etc.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 09:52 AM   #17
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
You're missing a huge sampling of people who have a stake in the lake and are indeed its owners/stewards...whether they be swimmers, people who don't own lakefront but hear the noise, older people who may not be as computer literate as you, people who kayak, etc., etc.
I disagree.. one thing I have found in meeting people from Winni.com is that there is a wide range of people who visit this site. You can see that simply from the diverse range of opinions and amount of views the speed limit sub-forum has accumulated. There is no way to tell who is voting - boaters, kayakers, swimmers, or visitors.

I am simply saying that I like this poll because it is not written to sway anyone's vote and it is a sample of people who most likely frequent the lake more so then a random calling of NH residents.

I personally feel that those who are at the lake, know the waters, boat on the lake (to whatever capacity) should have more say then someone that has never visited.

It is very difficult to explain to someone how big the lake is until you have been there. If a quiestion is posed to someone who has never seen the lake if speed limits should be enacted they normally will have nothing to compare it to other then driving a car. As we all know there is quite a difference there.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 03:05 PM   #18
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I disagree.. one thing I have found in meeting people from Winni.com is that there is a wide range of people who visit this site. You can see that simply from the diverse range of opinions and amount of views the speed limit sub-forum has accumulated. There is no way to tell who is voting - boaters, kayakers, swimmers, or visitors.

I am simply saying that I like this poll because it is not written to sway anyone's vote and it is a sample of people who most likely frequent the lake more so then a random calling of NH residents.

I personally feel that those who are at the lake, know the waters, boat on the lake (to whatever capacity) should have more say then someone that has never visited.

It is very difficult to explain to someone how big the lake is until you have been there. If a quiestion is posed to someone who has never seen the lake if speed limits should be enacted they normally will have nothing to compare it to other then driving a car. As we all know there is quite a difference there.
Maybe I'm missing something but these numbers don't seem to mesh with what I'm seeing in this neighborhood. Our road association, consisting of many modest homes, many of which need to be rented out just to pay the taxes, voted unamimously to send a portion of our road dues to Winnfabs. My elderly parents (not computer literate) would also not be represented here. I suppose one could take a poll of Americans asking what they felt America's role in world affairs should be and the results would vary astonishingly depending on whether you polled at a Baptist church in Georgia vs. a mosque in New York City. Polls taken by asking people to respond are notoriously inaccurate compared to when the pollster goes directly to those being polled. For example, if you went to everyone who has posted on any forum on Winnipesaukee.com (general category, pets, real estate, restaurants, weather etc.)over the last 6 months and posted your question to them, then the poll would have some statistical validity.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 03:20 PM   #19
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Maybe I'm missing something but these numbers don't seem to mesh with what I'm seeing in this neighborhood. Our road association, consisting of many modest homes, many of which need to be rented out just to pay the taxes, voted unamimously to send a portion of our road dues to Winnfabs. My elderly parents (not computer literate) would also not be represented here. I suppose one could take a poll of Americans asking what they felt America's role in world affairs should be and the results would vary astonishingly depending on whether you polled at a Baptist church in Georgia vs. a mosque in New York City. Polls taken by asking people to respond are notoriously inaccurate compared to when the pollster goes directly to those being polled. For example, if you went to everyone who has posted on any forum on Winnipesaukee.com (general category, pets, real estate, restaurants, weather etc.)over the last 6 months and posted your question to them, then the poll would have some statistical validity.
I understand your point, however are you saying that the majority of people who visit winni.com are GFBL enthusiasts? Because when I read all of these posts there are hardcore people on both sides (being the unlimited / current law votes) but the majority appears wants some restrictions but some type of compromise...

Also would you agree with me that we should poll those who are most effected by the law rather then people who never have been to the lake and / or have no boating knowledge of the lake?

In a previous post in another thread I pointed out almost the exact same point you made which was it all depends on the people you speak to. Most people associate with others like themselves. If you ask all my neighbors I'd say 90% + are not in favor of limits.... As you said it all depends on where you are polling.

I think Winni.com does have a wide array of people all of which Love the lake, otherwise they wouldn't be on or part of this website. From the other polls the majority only 20% own a go fast boat / jetski effected by the limits. However looking at these numbers I feel it clearly shows that people do want some type of law just not all or nothing. Whether I agree with that or not is my personal beliefs but from all these discussions it looks like we can work something out to please "most" everyone.

Wouldn't you say?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 03:30 PM   #20
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,736
Thanks: 2,257
Thanked 821 Times in 572 Posts
Default My road association

Is consist of modest homes, old cottages and a McMansion. We all agree we need some kind of limits but disagree verbally about the 25 at night. We are already suffering from erosion due to the high water as well as boat wakes. We love to compromise on the 25 at night. It should either be above cruiser planing speed or no wake at all.
We have sent a petition signed by over 50 lake shore owners to Rep. Pilliod last year. The only response we got from him was, 'We have to start somewhere'. That is not a compromise. Pure bully tactic.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 04:06 PM   #21
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post

Also would you agree with me that we should poll those who are most effected by the law rather then people who never have been to the lake and / or have no boating knowledge of the lake?
The lake belongs to everyone in NH, from those who may dunk their kids in the lake at a public beach once a year to my neighbor across the street who doesn't own lake frontage but complains about the noise. It belongs to storeowners in Center Harbor and to someone who wants to curl up in a hammock next to the lake and peacefully read a book. These are all NH voters and all their votes mean the same to our elected officials in Concord.
My point is that anyone, not just boaters, who interacts with the lake has a say. Our legislators know this and are intelligent enough to interpret a poll taken on a boating forum as just such.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 04:14 PM   #22
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,520
Thanks: 445
Thanked 783 Times in 542 Posts
Default

I agree with you Ocdactive, that if someone never uses the lake, doesn't live near the lake, they just can't havethe same interest. For instance,I certainly do not care what people in Salem do. I never go there. But to those who live there I am sure there are many issues that are very important to them.
tis is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 04:27 PM   #23
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
The lake belongs to everyone in NH, from those who may dunk their kids in the lake at a public beach once a year to my neighbor across the street who doesn't own lake frontage but complains about the noise. It belongs to storeowners in Center Harbor and to someone who wants to curl up in a hammock next to the lake and peacefully read a book. These are all NH voters and all their votes mean the same to our elected officials in Concord.
My point is that anyone, not just boaters, who interacts with the lake has a say. Our legislators know this and are intelligent enough to interpret a poll taken on a boating forum as just such.
I see your point but I disagree somewhat on the basis that this is not a boating website. Although we are in the Boating forum as you pointed out many people are effected by speed limits and anyone on the website are welcome to participate in this poll. I didn't say "boating members only".

So again I think this poll is more relevant because it is people who love the lake and have choosen to come onto winni.com to talk more about the place they know and love.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 04:37 PM   #24
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I see your point but I disagree somewhat on the basis that this is not a boating website. Although we are in the Boating forum as you pointed out many people are effected by speed limits and anyone on the website are welcome to participate in this poll. I didn't say "boating members only".

So again I think this poll is more relevant because it is people who love the lake and have choosen to come onto winni.com to talk more about the place they know and love.
EXCELLENT POINT OCD!!!!!! This could not be more relevant. Winnipesaukee.com is not nor has ever been a "boating forum." Where is this written? Anyone who comes to this website can clearly see all posts from every subthread and is welcome to vote. Where does it say that this poll is exclusive to boater? Why should people in North Conway or Nashua or Concord or Merrimack or Hooksett or wherever have say on what goes on at a lake they never visit?????? IMO people who visit www.winnipesaukee.com represent the views and opinions that I support with regard to how the lake should be governed. If this poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a SL I would pack up shop and never comment again and accept the law as is. However SL supporters will continuously denounce this forum as a misrepresentation of the "REAL" opinions of the users of the lake. What a complete JOKE! Please this is a plea to all members of this forum VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. I along with all those who support positions other than the current law welcome any and all viewpoints. Yes we debate them, sometimes strongly. I must have missed the page that Don put up that states "BOATERS ONLY" "SPEED LIMIT SUPPORTERS NEED NOT APPLY." What a crock.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 05:18 PM   #25
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
... If this poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a SL I would pack up shop and never comment again and accept the law as is....
Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 05:34 PM   #26
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,520
Thanks: 445
Thanked 783 Times in 542 Posts
Default

You know, BI is right, most people are voting for compromise. Can I change my vote? For some reason I was thinking what I could best live with for a compromise and therefore didn't vote for unlimited. Unlimited would be my first choice. I could live with a limit at night because I do think the lake is dangerous at night.
tis is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 05:43 PM   #27
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.
Not necessarily, some of us in favor of no speed limit are willing to consider a compromise to avoid an all or nothing situation. Some of our votes might reflect that compromised position.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 05:41 AM   #28
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.

BI... I understand your premise however to say 80% are in favor is far reaching here.

The poll distinctly shows that either a compromise, no limits in certain areas, unlimited over a distance rule or unlimited all together is the majority.

Frankly it shows that limits currently in force, IS NOT the preferred way to go.

You being one of the leading advocates of a compromise, I would have thought you of all people would have not made the above statement. I thought you would have been very pleased that 60% are in favor of a compromised bill?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-22-2009 at 07:47 AM.
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 08:10 AM   #29
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

If you check out this link you can see how the forum voted 4 and 1/2 years ago.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1432


I don't understand how people can say this is not a boating forum. Look up near the top of the page and there is a link to "Forums" click that and one of the options is "Boating" click that and you get the option "Speed Limits" then you will find this thread. Face it people, we are on a boating forum and 78% are in favor of a speed limit. The permanent bill is going to pass in a walk.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 08:14 AM   #30
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,520
Thanks: 445
Thanked 783 Times in 542 Posts
Default

I don't think 78% of boaters are in favor of keeping the speed limit. I think a new poll asking if boaters are in favor or not would clearly show that, BI.
tis is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 08:25 AM   #31
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
If you check out this link you can see how the forum voted 4 and 1/2 years ago.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1432


I don't understand how people can say this is not a boating forum. Look up near the top of the page and there is a link to "Forums" click that and one of the options is "Boating" click that and you get the option "Speed Limits" then you will find this thread. Face it people, we are on a boating forum and 78% are in favor of a speed limit. The permanent bill is going to pass in a walk.
BI... I am again very surprised. I thought we were on the same page looking for a compromise..

1. It is a boating forum in a General Website concering the lake. The statement that only boating individuals are voting is completely false, bacause anyone on the website can come into the boating forum, not just boaters, and cast a vote. I would agree that the majority voting are boaters but not necessarilly everyone.

2. 78% are not in favor of speed limits. Since I wrote the poll I was clear to write in Unlimited in 3 of the catagorys. You can easily say that 60% are in favor of UNLIMITED (some with restrictions: distance, broads)

To say 80% are in favor of speed limits is a generalization that is being twisted.

You and I have talked at length about a compromise. I have made it clear that while I would want it to be totally unlimited I am willing to compromise to make it work for everyone. I was under the impression you are also willing to negotiate this. Am I still correct on that assumption?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 10:10 AM   #32
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have made it clear that while I would want it to be totally unlimited I am willing to compromise to make it work for everyone. I was under the impression you are also willing to negotiate this. Am I still correct on that assumption?

Aren't we just tilting at windmills here? We can all agree to anything and any compromise on this boating forum but it doesn't make it reality. We could all agree that pigs can fly, or sometimes fly, or fly 45 MPH (25 at night). Point is, there are many people not on this forum who are happy with the SL and even a few, at least on my shore, who feel 45/25 is too much of a compromise(especially the 25 MPH nite). What we all conclude on this forum seems like a small and inconsequential contribution to the reality of how people perceive the SL is working.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 10:18 AM   #33
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Aren't we just tilting at windmills here? We can all agree to anything and any compromise on this boating forum but it doesn't make it reality. We could all agree that pigs can fly, or sometimes fly, or fly 45 MPH (25 at night). Point is, there are many people not on this forum who are happy with the SL and even a few, at least on my shore, who feel 45/25 is too much of a compromise(especially the 25 MPH nite). What we all conclude on this forum seems like a small and inconsequential contribution to the reality of how people perceive the SL is working.
While I understand your point, that what is said and accomplished on this forum may have little impact in Concord, however it does allow us to discuss openly our personal thoughts. Although we are a small group it has to start somewhere.

I feel that we have made progress. In the past it was an "all or nothing" mentality. In the past few months I have spoken with many that would like to meet somewhere in between. If it can happen here it perhaps can carry forward elsewhere and maybe even to Concord.

You speak of many people who are happy, I know of many who are very Unhappy... We will never please everyone but lets at least try to please the majority... This polls majority may be mostly made up of boaters but I think it clearly shows that those who are the ones having to abide by the laws should have a larger say. I know you feel differently but that is what open debates are for.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 10:38 AM   #34
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
This polls majority may be mostly made up of boaters but I think it clearly shows that those who are the ones having to abide by the laws should have a larger say.
Then are you saying that someone who has to listen to GFBL noise but doesnt boat has less of a say than boaters? Do boaters who log 100 hours per season have less say than someone who logs 200 hours? How about my neighbor who swims but doesn't boat? Do boats capable of going faster than 45 MPH have more say than those going less (afterall, they're the ones more affected by the law)? I guarantee you that the answer from Concord will be a loud and unequivocal NO.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 10:56 AM   #35
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

One more thing, OCDACTIVE...I have to say that in your many posts your replies are always polite, above the belt, and never angry. I've seen some who get near rabid when people disagree with them and that's not you. You seem like a good person and I appreciate and understand your passion about what you do. I mean that.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 11:00 AM   #36
gtxrider
Senior Member
 
gtxrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
Default Distance not speed

Having spent 2 weeks on the lake my experience shows it is still the idiots that don't know 150' and not the speed that causes the troubles. Did the GTX exceed 45 mph?
gtxrider is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 11:21 AM   #37
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,675
Thanks: 23
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
BI... I am again very surprised. I thought we were on the same page looking for a compromise..

1. It is a boating forum in a General Website concering the lake. The statement that only boating individuals are voting is completely false, bacause anyone on the website can come into the boating forum, not just boaters, and cast a vote. I would agree that the majority voting are boaters but not necessarilly everyone.

2. 78% are not in favor of speed limits. Since I wrote the poll I was clear to write in Unlimited in 3 of the catagorys. You can easily say that 60% are in favor of UNLIMITED (some with restrictions: distance, broads)

To say 80% are in favor of speed limits is a generalization that is being twisted.

You and I have talked at length about a compromise. I have made it clear that while I would want it to be totally unlimited I am willing to compromise to make it work for everyone. I was under the impression you are also willing to negotiate this. Am I still correct on that assumption?
Please don't confuse my predictions with my hopes. I HOPE there will be a compromise that makes more people happy. I PREDICT the permanent speed limit, 45/25, will pass easily.

I don't think I am twisting anything. 78% voted for one of the speed limit options. Therefore 78% favor a speed limit of some kind.

You will also notice that the polls show no uniformity in finding a compromise.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 12:13 PM   #38
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Then are you saying that someone who has to listen to GFBL noise but doesnt boat has less of a say than boaters? Do boaters who log 100 hours per season have less say than someone who logs 200 hours? How about my neighbor who swims but doesn't boat? Do boats capable of going faster than 45 MPH have more say than those going less (afterall, they're the ones more affected by the law)? I guarantee you that the answer from Concord will be a loud and unequivocal NO.
First of all Sunset, I also appreciate your mannerisms while discussing this. Too many people take the tone of a conversation as heated and it drives the discussion right down hill. Obviously there are extremely different takes on this issue and heated debates can become personal. Frankly nothing is solved by that and peoples integrity in these threads goes down to the point where you become known as a troublemaker or troll. I try to stay on topic and objective as possible while voicing my opinions. I appreciate that you have done the same.

Now as far as your quote above ....................

This is where your side of speed limit debate goes off the rails. Speed and noise are two seperate issues. While my boat (notice I am not saying all GF Boats) is capable of exceeding 85mph, whether I am at 45mph or 65 mph, I am inside the law on sound. If noise is your argument then lets head over to that thread....

No I do not think that GFB votes or someone who logs a multitude of hours should have more of a vote over your neighbor who swims..... What I was alluding to is "in my opinion" people directly effected by the limits should be the ones voting on them such as your parents, your neighbor, lake business owners, property owners, those who only do 25 hours a year, and those who do 500.... Because, these are the people who understand the lake, understand the impact, and has first hand knowledge of what goes on. My contention simply was I get very frustrated when people conduct polls to people who have no comparisson, may have never visited the lake, and really have no stake in what is decided. For their vote doesn't mean anything to them. Where people who have voted on this website have a personal stake and are educated as to what is going on.

We will just have to agree to disagree, but I respect your thoughts.

Would you personally mind a compromise? I know you would like to keep it the way it is now, and I would like to have it unlimited, but would you be willing to compromise?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-22-2009 at 03:10 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 12:19 PM   #39
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Please don't confuse my predictions with my hopes. I HOPE there will be a compromise that makes more people happy. I PREDICT the permanent speed limit, 45/25, will pass easily.

I don't think I am twisting anything. 78% voted for one of the speed limit options. Therefore 78% favor a speed limit of some kind.

You will also notice that the polls show no uniformity in finding a compromise.
Ahh thank you for the clairification.. While I don't think it will be an easy pass, I think we definately need a compromise to be put into motion or else it will be back to the all or nothing.

Now I see your point as to "one of the speed limit options" I think we are just having a disagreement on the wording you have choosen. When I hear "speed limits" that means there is a threshold I can not pass. While 2 of the 3 unlimited options there are "restrictions" and not "limits" because as long as you are adhering to a certain standard i.e. in the broads, outside a certain distance perameter, then there are "No Limits". So I would say then that only 2 of the polling options favor some type of "limit" whether that be a compromised limit 65, or the current limits.

So currently I would say 46% would favor some kind of limits.

I think it is more of a verbage issue rather then an actual disagreement on the numbers.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 12:20 PM   #40
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,736
Thanks: 2,257
Thanked 821 Times in 572 Posts
Arrow The situation today

In NH politics is that it reach an all time low. NH Business magazine reports that the NH public has no confident with the current legislature and the representatives are fearing for a huge upset in the next election. Pilliod is trying to make his constituents happy by 'changing the subject' and make them happy with 'feel good' legislature. Typical of politicians who only care about themselves and not the people they represent.
That is why this passage is happening. To make the people feel that something is good coming from the current legislature.

That is why statistics and common sense will never prevail in politics. The reason why the economy is what it is today. Greed and Power.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 01:47 PM   #41
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.
Picky pick pick.... Semantics sorry I should have said In favor of the current SL law. BI, you don't have to resort to this tactic with me, by now I think you know my views.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 09:13 AM   #42
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.
I LOVE statistics. I can also look at the poll and surmise only 19% of voters agree with the current law. Or, I could say an "Overwhelming" number of people disagree with the current law.

They say what you want them to say.
4Fun is offline  
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to 4Fun For This Useful Post:
Airwaves (08-24-2009), chipj29 (08-24-2009), chmeeee (08-24-2009), DoTheMath (08-28-2009), hazelnut (08-24-2009), NoBozo (08-24-2009), NoRegrets (08-24-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-24-2009), Rattlesnake Guy (08-24-2009), Tyler (08-24-2009), VtSteve (08-24-2009)
Old 08-24-2009, 11:51 AM   #43
Pricestavern
Senior Member
 
Pricestavern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Long Island (not that one, the one in NY)
Posts: 305
Thanks: 31
Thanked 68 Times in 47 Posts
Default Statistics

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

- Benjamin Disraeli (et al)
Pricestavern is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Pricestavern For This Useful Post:
robmac (08-24-2009)
Old 08-24-2009, 03:14 PM   #44
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Sunset,

I really was surprised to read your post concerning this poll over in the supporters thread. In reading your posts here it looked as if we were able to discuss this poll in a very cival and justified manner........... Then I saw that. I am not trying to start a argument or anything but it just seems that you posted there to bash this poll because you know that we (opposers) are not allowed to post there. Just wondering? It almost seems like you are trying to drum up support and don't want to defend your claims?


Also, If the Poll showed the numbers going in a different direction I would bet that you would not be making the same claims.

Again not trying to stir things up just calling them as I see them.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 03:27 PM   #45
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 71
Thanks: 39
Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts
Default Thinking about compromise

I think it's high time that someone proposed legislation to restrict kayakers from going beyond 150' from shore. This would make total sense to me and would fit right into the legislature's attitude toward safety, don't you think? There's plenty of water between shore and 150' out from shore, given the entire perimeter of the lake. Kind of like keeping bicycles off of interstate highways - it just make sense.

Next keystrokes will be to my state rep and senators asking them to sponsor this bill. I think it's win - win for all parties.
Chimi is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 03:40 PM   #46
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default I am sick of this nonsense.

There is a certain group of people who keep saying the ďLake belongs to all of us.Ē

Yet, they are the same group that wants to take the lake away from another certain group.

Hmmm

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Just like the rest of the real world. The whole lake is NOT for everybody at all times. If you go out on the broads in a 16ft bowrider on the weekend you are a moron. Itís also not the appropriate place for a canoe, rowboat, or swimmer. There are days when it is not appropriate for a 25 foot bowrider to be on the broads. Slowing down boats will not make this lake any safer. The lake was a dangerous place 40 years ago and itís a dangerous place today. This argument made by the supporters truly has nothing to do with speed or safety. Itís making sure everybody is equal.

If the proponents where so sure they were right, why are they pushing the bill to become permanent before any studies can be done? The reason is they donít want the facts to get in the way. Right now, the statistics show the law is either not enforceable or there was never a problem with speed.


Life is not fair. Sometimes the Lake isnít either.
Kracken is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (08-25-2009)
Old 08-24-2009, 04:09 PM   #47
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
Sunset,

I really was surprised to read your post concerning this poll over in the supporters thread. In reading your posts here it looked as if we were able to discuss this poll in a very cival and justified manner........... Then I saw that. I am not trying to start a argument or anything but it just seems that you posted there to bash this poll because you know that we (opposers) are not allowed to post there. Just wondering? It almost seems like you are trying to drum up support and don't want to defend your claims?


Also, If the Poll showed the numbers going in a different direction I would bet that you would not be making the same claims.

Again not trying to stir things up just calling them as I see them.
And no offense was meant to you (especially). You are perhaps the most even-tempered and patient poster of the SL opponents(if I were not a SL supporter, you'd get my vote for leadership of the SL opponents). What I posted on the supporters thread was a re hash of what I've said on this thread...it was more a question of seeing what other SL supporters (who may be quite hesitant to post here...please refer to the first couple of posts on the supporter's thread where Don our moderator in fact agrees that there are some SL opponents whose goal is to drive off SL supporters from the forum) think.

Last edited by sunset on the dock; 08-24-2009 at 08:55 PM.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-24-2009, 07:05 PM   #48
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
And no offense was meant to you (especially). You are perhaps the most even-tempered and patient poster of the SL opponents(if I were not a SL supporter, you'd get my vote for leadership of the SL opponents). What I posted on the supporters thread was a re hash of what I've said on this thread...it was more a question of seeing what other SL supporters (who may be quite hesitant to post here...please refer to the first couple of posts on the supporter's thread where Don our moderator in fact agrees that there are some SL opponents whose goal is to drive off SL supporters from the forum).
Honestly no worries then.. It really just took me aback for it didn't sound right coming from you.. so figured best not jump to conclusions and ask.. Mystery solved...

Thanks again.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 07:41 AM   #49
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 211 Times in 87 Posts
Default Kayak Restriction

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimi
I think it's high time that someone proposed legislation to restrict kayakers from going beyond 150' from shore. This would make total sense to me and would fit right into the legislature's attitude toward safety, don't you think? There's plenty of water between shore and 150' out from shore, given the entire perimeter of the lake. Kind of like keeping bicycles off of interstate highways - it just make sense.....
Hi Chimi,

I have a boat, canoe, and kayak. We are at the south end of Paugus Bay. Sunday morning I took my kayak up the bay, across to the big and little islands and back again. Your new law would have made me it wrong for me to do this. We do not need laws but common sense. There were the normal water skiers getting quality time in the bay and a few fishing boats. I would never venture out there on a Saturday afternoon!
There are too many sections of water on the lake that you would not be able to cross with the 150’ limit and our legislators would screw it up totally! Good thought but highly restrictive for the little good it would do.
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 08:10 AM   #50
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
There are too many sections of water on the lake that you would not be able to cross with the 150’ limit and our legislators would screw it up totally! Good thought but highly restrictive for the little good it would do.
Kinda like the speed limit law?
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 08:23 AM   #51
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,853
Thanks: 486
Thanked 285 Times in 151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
Hi Chimi,

I have a boat, canoe, and kayak. We are at the south end of Paugus Bay. Sunday morning I took my kayak up the bay, across to the big and little islands and back again. Your new law would have made me it wrong for me to do this. We do not need laws but common sense. There were the normal water skiers getting quality time in the bay and a few fishing boats. I would never venture out there on a Saturday afternoon! There are too many sections of water on the lake that you would not be able to cross with the 150í limit and our legislators would screw it up totally! Good thought but highly restrictive for the little good it would do.
While you have the needed common sense to avoid the middle of the bay on a Saturday afternoon in a canoe or kayak, not everyone has that common sense. In fact, some feel that the rest of the lake users need to adjust their habits to make it possible to be able to do just that.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to chipj29 For This Useful Post:
Chimi (08-25-2009)
Old 08-25-2009, 09:46 AM   #52
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 211 Times in 87 Posts
Default Laws - Laws - Laws - Everywhere Laws!

I do not think that making a law to control every action possible to protect the lowest common denominator creates long term benefit. The nature of competition inspires research, action, and winners. The converse is "be careful you may get hurt" so don't do anything. IMO - This in not a very stimulating or enjoyable way to live.

We no longer have competitive manufacturing, our educational system is at the bottom of the industrial countries, everyone gets a trophy as to not have anyone feel embarrased, don't use grades because poor preformers will feel "bad", and so on.

You can not legislate common sense! Everyone will go mad trying to do it.
It will hurt 95% of the population for the 5% of Darwin Award candidates.
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-25-2009), DoTheMath (08-28-2009), hazelnut (08-25-2009), Kracken (08-25-2009), NoBozo (08-26-2009), OCDACTIVE (08-25-2009), PC31 (09-03-2009), Senter Cove Guy (08-25-2009), tis (08-26-2009), trfour (08-25-2009), Wolfeboro_Baja (08-26-2009)
Old 08-26-2009, 08:28 AM   #53
Wolfeboro_Baja
Senior Member
 
Wolfeboro_Baja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hopkinton NH
Posts: 395
Thanks: 88
Thanked 80 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
You can not legislate common sense! Everyone will go mad trying to do it.
Unfortunately, people can't learn it either; they either have it or they don't!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
It will hurt 95% of the population for the 5% of Darwin Award candidates.
Are you sure it's only 5%?!? Because there are some days where I think it's MUCH higher than that!!
__________________
Cancer SUCKS!
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 09:16 AM   #54
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,736
Thanks: 2,257
Thanked 821 Times in 572 Posts
Default Looking at polls

In this subforum. It looks like the 65/30 is reasonable. Based on another poll, most boats speed falls at or below the 65 mph day time. As for night, 25 is too slow for planing for most large boats and those with V hulls. 30 will allow more boats to plane resulting in less erosion. Any comments?
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 09-09-2009, 09:47 AM   #55
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 211 Times in 87 Posts
Default

If we believe we need a permanent speed limit law then I believe this is a suitable compromise. You did a fantastic job of rationalizing the results from multiple threads. Your logic is solid and very few would be impacted by your limits.

Since this is hypothetical and open to compromise, should there be provisions to get waivers for certain areas? Winni is the only large body of water (the broads) that can support an unlimited restriction. Anyone who can attain the faster speeds should be able to use the portion of the lake safely. Maybe certain days of the week in certain areas with notification to authorities the limit could be managed by permit. What do others think?
NoRegrets 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 -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.50544 seconds