Speed limit permanent to be filed!

[Airwaves]

Given this article in the Laconia Daily Sun today and the quote from the bill’s sponsor regarding not waiting until next year to gather data…and the fact that the bill to eliminate the sunset of the {speed limit law} will be filed NEXT MONTH!

Perhaps it is time to consider opening the discussion once again. I recall Don saying he would weigh that option when the time came.

[Kracken]

+ 1 With airwaves.

It was a little slow last week...I had enough time to read all the closed {speed limit} threads. I did not felt strongly either way before last week, that has changed.

[Woodsy]

Its baaaaaaccccckkk!

Woodsy

[ironhorsetim]

Woodsy, you are a trip

[VtSteve]

Given the Captain Bonehead threads, you'd think they would have bigger problems to solve. It would seem they don't have a good handle on what the "culture of the lake" really is

[chipj29]

Since the SL passed, my fear was always that no matter the outcome, it would be easy for SL supporters to extend the 2 year trial. My rationale is that:
1. If the data comes back and shows that there were very few speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective in keeping faster boats off the lake.
2. If the data comes back and shows that there were a bunch of speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective and enforceable, and because a lot of tix were issued, is still needed.

[LakeSnake]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Since the SL passed, my fear was always that no matter the outcome, it would be easy for SL supporters to extend the 2 year trial. My rationale is that:
1. If the data comes back and shows that there were very few speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective in keeping faster boats off the lake.
2. If the data comes back and shows that there were a bunch of speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective and enforceable, and because a lot of tix were issued, is still needed.

Chipj29 - there is one thing wrong with your logic - you used the word "rationale". I don't think the legislature knows what that is - much less how to use it. Welcome to Mass in the Mountains.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Yes, open it back up. The public has a right to know, maybe now they will see this extremist group for what it really is.

[ironhorsetim]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Perhaps it is time to consider opening the discussion once again. I recall Don saying he would weigh that option when the time came.

Why start another thread when the first one ended soooo badly that it had to be closed?

Those concerned (both sides) should take their anger out on the Legislator's and not repeat the clubbing that went on before.

That of course is just "my" opinion.

Then again, this is a forum.

[caloway]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

Why start another thread when the first one ended soooo badly that it had to be closed?

Those concerned (both sides) should take their anger out on the Legislator's and not repeat the clubbing that went on before.

That of course is just "my" opinion.

Then again, this is a forum.

Got my senator, rep. and Lynch. By the way, my rep already returned my msg. Nice work!

Also a relatively quick observation:

Looks to me like 95% of the boats on the lake would have a hard time topping 45mph on the rough waters of Winni. From the posts on this board it would seem that we're overrepresented by the other 5%. As vocal as the 5% may be, it's pretty hard to overcome the numbers. Time to compromise.

[Resident 2B]

Speed has never been the real issue on Lake Winnipesaukee. The argument that peed has been the real issue was a pure fabrication by those with another agenda that happen to have enough money to push their cause.

Enforcing all of the laws in place last year (2008) will solve 99% of the real boating issues on the lake today. I believe that was also the opinion of the head of the NHMP.

If the bill to make this ridiculous speed limit permanent is going forward, in the interest of fairness, it is time to reopen the old thread or allow a new thread to open with some restrictions, such as one post per day.

Those in opposition to the speed limit cannot let the fictitious and fabricated spin of the few who seem to have the politicians in their back pocket continue to have their way without the ability to comment.

Again, we have our boneheads on the lake. They are the real issue. Speed is not.

Let freedom ring!

R2B

[tis]

I have seen absolutely no difference on the lake with the speed limit. I don' t
feel one bit safer, in fact, I think the 150' rule is way out of control this year and that is the one that we should worry about.
Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

[Kracken]

Last time most opponents of the speed limit did not believe it would ever happen. There were simply too many powerful organizations and individuals that would protect everyone’s freedoms and there was no way it would be taken away by the special interest groups. There was simply no need for the average citizen to get involved, the belief was common sense would ultimately prevail.

The proponents of the bill were certainly the vocal minority but they were organized and determined to have their agenda pushed through. The proponents are still active. They want to make this law permanent before the “sunset” effectively eliminating any reflection, evaluation or opposition.

I don’t doubt it’s the Captain Boneheads that are the real problem. I would rather share the lake with 200 GFBL (excuse me performance boats) than one Captain Bonehead. We can sit and debate how Darwin was right or we can start to get our lake back.

I urge everybody to get involved before it is too late. Please open the thread not only to debate but to set a plan of action. We need to let the legislators of this state know we are the vocal majority and WE VOTE.

I will get off my soap box now.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Resident or not, if you want to stop this bogus end-around now, start contacting every rep and senator that voted for this rediculous legislation. This is the exact strategy that they had in mind from the beginning. Get the vote with the sunset law, then make the sunset law disappear by creating lame excuses for why it should be eliminated. Pathetic!

In addition, those of us that reside in NH should be prepared to vote these people out of office when the next election rolls around. They are ruining this State, just like their bretheren in Washington are ruining this country.

VOTE THEM OUT!

[VtSteve]

As those with time to spare have proven, if you talk to the right people, organize a little, and put out mis-information in all the right circles, your odds of winning are much higher. So, right back at em.

The MP knows full well what this new law would produce, little or nothing. They also knew the proponents would be disappointed, and warned that they shouldn't expect a deluge of violations. Because as Barrett said himself, it wasn't that big a problem to begin with.

Most people on most lakes, performance boaters included, know full well that the problem lies in enforcement. There are irresponsible boaters on everything from kayaks to triple-engined speed merchants. The proponents of the law knew that. They also knew that funding was inadequate, but did nothing to assist the process. Some Proponents have also indicated, both in writing and insinuations, that their main intent of the new law was to eliminate a certain group of people from the lake itself. That's quite a heady goal in the United States, given this country's propensity to save everything from endangered species to providing special rights to most every special interest group that exists.

The media and the public need to be educated, not brainwashed. If a small group is very vocal and outspoken, they can offer up a number of miss statements as they did last year. It was a popular time for them to succeed at their little project. Even though the outrage at the time was over a particular one or two accidents, neither involving speed, it worked. Their intent wasn't safety at all, they were prejudiced against a group of boaters they don't like, and probably have never met. Most of the ones I know of are pretty decent people, and are far more responsible with their boats than the general boating population. Admittedly, some are not.

So maybe now it's time for the rational boaters to have their say. For every proponent that wants to "change the culture" of the lake, there are at least that many that can rattle off a variety of safety issues on the water that go unexposed to the public eye. The general public only reads what they read, and watch the stories that they see on the news. If they hear a story where a High-Speed Performance Boat crashed into an island, they naturally assume that a Big Bad Fast boat crashed at high speed and these people need to be stopped. Ditto with the previous accident, which was arguably at a pretty low speed.

TV crews need to have their thirst quenched for newsworthy stories like this. They were duped, now maybe it's time to enlighten them. Video is a Very Powerful Force on TV news. There should be enough footage in one weekend to fill a documentary. Spokespeople against this law shouldn't use the same, immature and unhelpful tactics that groups like Winfabs used. Honesty works. While most acknowledge that the intent wasn't safety, that needs to get out in the public eye. There was a bad accident recently in Texas that involved a couple of wakeboard boats, one of which was driven at night by a drunk. Not much of a surprise to many of us. A woman was interviewed and noted that the problem now is speed, "those Cigarette Boats". LOL Not a one involved. Just as last year's tragedy proved, it was the individual that made headlines, the rest was inferred.

Most law enforcement people can tell you pretty quickly what the problems are on the lake. Whether their budgets and time allow them to do anything about it is another matter altogether. Groups like Winfabs don't care about the MP budget, and obviously don't care much about the Captain Boneheads out there. If they did, they would devote their attention to the real safety issues, not demonizing a particular group of people or their boats.

So how does one proceed?

NWZ means just that.

150' violations are pretty easy to shoot video of

Many of the recent statements (this year) made by proponents of the law itself should be quite damming in a nation of laws and common sense.

A brief review of the last 30 years of history of accidents on Winni alone would reveal that someone wasn't telling the truth last year. It would also indicate where the main focus should be.

Also, adopt a Rule 6. Keep the provision in the current law, and make sure you promote the aspect of Safe and Prudent Speed. If someone's out there flying around at 80 mph between boats in a congested area, bust em.

This cannot be a Pro Speed movement. I don;t care who you are, you'll never win anything. Be Pro Safety, Pro Common Sense. If you want to be against anything in particular,

Be the

BOATERS AGAINST CAPTAIN BONEHEADS.

[BroadHopper]

This button will certainly reduce the space requirements. I want to thanks VtSteve for the last post.

[Airwaves]

VtSteve, that's a damn good letter to the editor and pamphlet material if I ever saw one!

Maybe even use Steve's post as a template email to send to legislators and the governor in order to urge the defeat of the bill to eliminate the sunset clause.

Nice Job

[VtSteve]

Key statements for follow-up, referenced from the original article in Post #1


"Bosworth talks at length about the
impact of the fast boats on the novice
boaters and the fact that even experienced
boaters have altered their use of
the lake because of their fear of those
who travel at high rates of speed."


"Pilliod suggests that “The culture of
the lake has started to change. That
was what happened on Lake George in
New York. Enforcement officials there
have told us that education has had as
much to do with slowing down traffic as
enforcement of the speed limit laws.”


It sounds to me like nothing has really changed. Even though traffic is down on the lake due to weather and economic realities, it appears people have altered their behavior on the lake to ward off Captain Boneheads. You can't argue against fear and perception, but you can argue facts. The facts to start with are pretty easy.

Earlier this year, the MP had a statement in an interview that the MP hopes people don;t get their expectation up, because speed wasn't that much of a problem to begin with. The detractors challenge this argument, but not face to face against the MP (which would undermine their cause).

The last statement above indicates that LE has told them that education has as much to do with slowing down traffic on Lake George as the law itself.

Here's where the semantics come into play. Absolutely nowhere will you see anyone reference the bowrider that crashed there last summer on land. Number one, it was not a GF boat, and number two, it was an intoxicated driver. You won't see much press on the PWC that crashed into the swim platform of a moored boat either.

There are parts of the law that can, and should, be kept in place. The MP needs something with teeth in it to stop suspected boaters. Suspected of being BUI, or suspected of being reckless and dangerous. No, this does not mean stopping a boat at night doing 20 mph and saying he was speeding.

The only way this works is if an organization is formed that truly is unbiased. One that encompasses all boaters. Kayakers, other paddlers, small boats, large boats, sailboats, everyone on the lake. It's an organization that should have contact with, and the admiration of, the MP headquarters. Not only an advocate of boaters, it should open up communications between the media, the MP, and the community at large. When the media seeks a statement, This organization should always be ready to speak up.

Guys like Bosworth go uncontested in the news, spouting their crappola whenever they see their agenda losing ground.

You get something like this BS in the paper.

"For Sheldon Bosworth,
spokesperson for WinnFAB
(Winnipesaukee
Family Alliance for Boating
Safety), the data is
important."

A pretty narrow definition of Safety. A cursory review of their website shows that they've done nothing but be a Proponent of the SL law. It kind of reminds me of the of 55 mph debates. Remember that there would be "Blood In The Streets" if the highway speed limit was raised to 65 mph? Yup, their gone. LEO's concentrate on the real offenders, for the most part. Since the change, highway safety has been fine overall.

If Mr. Bosworth was at all interested in safety, his organization would do more than just advocate for the SL law. Perhaps they should just be replaced by an organization that really cares.

[Bear Islander]

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Bear Islander I call BS on that one. That case has not been tried yet, and you are not the Judge or the Jury. So leave it out. This latest move shows Winnfabs for what they really are. An Extremist Group, period, the end. Word on the street is they have already drawn up a bill aimed at boats larger than 30 ft, So called Wake makers, definitely aimed at cabin cruisers, no doubt they are going to claim, erosion, fear of big wakes etc.... These people need to be shut down.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO! (a famous line from Animal House). Well it ain't over now, that's for sure.

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

OK Don, thanks for the message. Would you be opposed to an "opposers thread"?

[BroadHopper]

It seems like everyone here oppose the SL. Except for Bear Islander.

Don, I don't see the Thanks button.

[Bear Islander]

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

I wasn't aware anyone was in denial over the accident. Can you enlighten some of us that perhaps are a little foggy on the details?

1) What exactly never happened, and who said it would never happen? What happened?


2) What other Speed-Related accidents have occurred? Do you have a running list? With Details?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

In what way was that "accident" speed related ... in the sense that the SL, if followed, would have been applicable and prevented the "accident" ?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

May very well be BI, and I do understand and respect your statement. But even in your post, you reference "last year's fatal accident". It involved a single cruiser-type vessel, not a go fast boat. It also, from all indications so far, did not involve a very high rate of speed. If the SL had been in place at that point in time, I defy anyone to "seriously" state that the accident would not have occurred. Same with the other "infamous accident", also at a fairly slow speed.

I know, and I'm pretty sure you know, that the outcome would have been a very positive thing had both sides really focused on the problems, not the solutions. I really would like to see an organization that had everyone under one umbrella. It would have served the public well. But in this economy, and what I feel will be much higher boat prices in the future, all of this may very well be a moot argument.

As LI on the other thread pointed out, some middle ground should be found. Some think that people like myself are part of the small minority of GFBL people. I know my boat can at times do 55 or so, but it's not that fast, nor loud at all. I have a standard Alpha drive with UW exhaust. It's a cuddy cabin for crying out loud. It's a typical mischaracterization, but an organized one. Say it enough, and it will stick. There are very few (from what I've seen) GFBL boaters on these threads. What, maybe a dozen max?

A major point of those opposing the law was to try and get people fixated on the problems. The majority of proponents wanted you to focus your attention on one particular group of people, and ignore the rest. It's an argument of perception, an argument where a minority is singled out as being the root cause of all evil, facts be dammed. It's an argument that was successfully refuted south of NE, where it was clearly shown that proponents of a SL law targeted an area that was, in fact already a NW zone. Members of a certain Yacht club, were also shown on camera speeding through this NWZ in their YC boats, and operating too close to other boaters at the same time.

But that's neither here nor there. Even if the SL law is maintained, permanent or otherwise, something has to be done about safety. I don;t think anyone seriously expects proponents of the SL law to even be in the same room when a safety discussion occurs. They rarely (if ever) participate in any discussions concerning the infamous Captain Bonehead. A very interesting aspect of this discussion I might add. To the point where some SL proponents think there is peace and harmony on the lake now, whereas others have experienced the same old situations as in the past.

Hint: If things are admitted to be bad now, with decreased boat traffic, then what have they accomplished? Perhaps the recent spat of better weather will cause APS to update his thread that shows details of the numbers of boats, seemingly updated on the hour.

[BroadHopper]

The defunct group did more than what WINFABS could ever do in the name of SAFETY. The group encourage MP to put out 150' bouys outside of pubic docks to make it visible what 150' really is.
They also sponsor the No Wake Zone between Eagle Island and Governor's Island. One member even put out No Wake signs in the Weirs Channel!
One of the rules they were going to sponsor was to make the area between Cattle landing and Bear Island a no wake on weekends. There were other rules and regulations to spoinsor and I am not going to elaborate.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

Bear Islander. I have read all of your posts and lets just agree to disagree on the speed limit issue.

However.
1. the fat lady has sung for 2 years. Currently they go away at the end of 2010 so it may be premature to say "they are here to stay"

2. Please do not use the tragic accident, which is still pending, as a pawn either for or against the speed limit debate. Let it play out on its own and we will then see the "proven" causes

3. I will not disagree with you on the compromise you propose. I don't like it but I can go along with it. Unfortunately I think it would be again used by some (not saying you) as a tool to try to put the limits on the entire lake.

Carry on.

[HUH]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

What fatal accident involving excessive speed are you referring to.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by HUH

What fatal accident involving excessive speed are you referring to.

Must be the Diamond Island accident. I'm not aware of any other fatal boat accident last year.

The speed of the accident, though excessive, will likely have a limited affect on the decision to keep the speed limit. It is the affiliation of the operator in that accident with performance boating that will probably convince NH legislators to allow the speed limit to stay. Politically speaking, that was a pretty big blunder.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by tis

Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

When you vote nannys to the legislator, you get nanny laws. Narrow-minded people who think they know best. They're the ones who told their kids "Don't play outside, you might get hurt". And "Don't keep score -- someone's feelings might get hurt if they lose".

They grow up believing everything is evil, and there are bullies behind every corner. And only they can solve the world's problems. They're basically control-freaks, and when they get legislative power, they abuse it. And they certainly don't understand what it means to be a free American. In fact, I doubt any of them really understand America, and certainly not New Hampshire.

How did they get this power? From the rest of us. We voted them in. Apathy. Or stupidity on our part. Do you expect them to keep any promises? No way -- they have their power, their agenda, and they will do everything they can to permantly install the nanny state -- for our own good, of course!

[malibu]

I would like to reiterate what others are saying about the SL and safety. The truth of the matter is the lake is no safer now than it was without a SL. If you were out on the water the past two weekends you would see this first hand. We need to stop wasting time and resources on what doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Put a MP boat in every bay on the weekends and pull over the boneheads that continually break the laws we all ready have. Just the MP presence will make people think twice.

Malibu

[Bear Islander]

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

My contention is where you state "reasonable and prudent". There was an accident, the boat hit an island, there was a fatality. Whether going 10mph or 30mph it is safe to say the boats operation was not reasonable and prudent.

That being said, we can "what if" the accident to death (which has already happened) saying limits would have prevented it is purely speculation and an opinion.

Hopefully this time around the SL debate will be based on fact and not speculation.

So again lets agree not to go down the speculation path and argue the particulars. Such as How many tickets have been issued? Has the Marine Patrol seen a difference this year opposed to last year? etc.

Actual Data...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA?

I also agree that the only thing the trial will prove is if she were drunk as well as going too fast for the conditions.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA? ...

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

Just wondering BI, wouldn't hitting an island be deemed as Careless or Negligent? call me crazy...

Either way, this accident would not have been avoided by a speed limit, reasonable or prudent, careless or negligent - "in my opinion". You have "your opinion" so lets check the opinions and the speculation at the door and discuss what the speed limits have accomplished now that they have been in effect for the year, not what we think they could have accomplished when they weren't even in effect.

The speed limit debate has been opened up to discuss the results and if they should be continued so please lets keep on topic.


Hopefully that is clear enough...

[OCDACTIVE]

What really is upsetting is if you read the article it says (the winfabs spokesman) states they do not have the time to wait for the data to be collected and must file legislation now.

This is an absolute 180 in comparisson to the reasons they fought for the testing and 2 year provision to begin with!!!

See give them an inch and they go for the mile....

It is beyond frustrating!

[VtSteve]

They did fight hard for the data, almost as hard as they fought to get a poll consisting of very broad language done.

They can't wait for any data because it shows nothing, just as it did last year. They openly accused the MP of not doing the job properly and of being biased. With the lake traffic down this summer, and hardly a mention of a ticket, much less a ton of them, what do they have? Same as always, an agenda with no data. If they were part of the Global Warming debate, god knows what kinds of laws they could get passed

Getting back to the BI support for the wording. It's important to understand the difference between the old and new wording.

Old:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


Try to take that one to court. So now you'd have a boater arguing that 24mph is safe and prudent because...... blah blah


New

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.


Specific, not vague and open to all kinds of legal interpretations. It also gives the MP the ability to bring into play that speed is important to the event. I disagree with BI that the new wording is all that important to last year's accident, although it most assuredly would have applied, and would make the prosecutor's job much easier. The prosecution apparently didn't have much problem coming up with multiple charges anyway.

But the wording is very good, and does not in anyway restrict anyone's ability to enjoy their craft on the lake. There may be cases where an MP interprets the conditions to be real, and may not be correct. But this wording has teeth, and will at least give the LEO's some help in getting a real bad guy off the water if there's one around. This is not a law that's aimed at someone innocently being only 100' away from a dock or boat, or just screws up without a foul. Hopefully, LEO's will use it prudently, and target those that really need it, like repeat offenders, habitual recklessness, that sort of thing. It also makes it easier to stop the drinks, which is important.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

You're spot on with that comment. The previous law allowed way too much wiggle room by being ambiguous. The new wording is much more like a general Rule 6. They should have passed that change, and left it at that. I'll always support a "Reasonable and Prudent" law, no problems at all.

but..... and you knew there would be a butt somewhere

You go on to say

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

Fine, Then stop saying that "It's Clear To Me". It most certainly isn't clear to anyone. That's like saying that the murderer wouldn't have shot the person if he had adhered to the law. You also lose it on punish the abusers, then hope.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

I agree with you on all points there. The outcome of the trial is not something that SL supporters are anxiously awaiting. It's pretty apparent to most, if not all people, that something was done improperly on the boat that night. Even if it's something as innocent as they followed a GPS and trusted it when they couldn't see anything does not fly either. (BTW, just an example)

I agree with you're general premise that the wording changes in the new law are good ones, long time coming. Makes it easier to actually get a conviction. Unfortunately, when you went off in all directions during the SL debate, your most salient points were lost in a sea of boat wakes, NWZ's and other such rubbish. But you're too smart to not know that

At any rate, most of us agree with the bulk of the wording's intent, and also with the general framework of boating safety. Until the MP is not living hand to mouth, most of it is a moot discussion. The folks that are strict supporters of only the speed limits themselves? They have no data, never had any data, and can't even hang their hats on accidents that support their only cause. We know this because we'd be inundated with data on an hourly basis if they had something, anything.


I'd prefer to stay on track with the safety thread myself, at least it's constructive.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

Please stop hiding behind the words "Reasonable and Prudent". We all know HB847 is about so much more than that. Stop using the smoke and mirrors, please!

Until Jan 1, 2009 we had this:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

"Operate in a Reasonable and Prudent Manner" is just another way of saying "Do Not Operate in a Careless and Negligent Manner" in my opinion. You are just spinning things again for your agenda.

Quite frankly, I completely agree with Reasonable and Prudent. Those are great words. It is the 45 MPH limit during the day on the whole lake that is your fight.

My objective is Boating Safety, so I embrace Reasonable and Prudent operation for all vessels. However, before we had to operate in a manner that was not Careless and Negligent. I really do not see any real difference, except for while Careless and Neglient only effected power boats, reasonable and prudent effects all vessels, including sail boats and kayaks.

R2B

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI...

How on earth can you make a statement like that?? Your contradicting yourself! In one paragraph your saying a speed limit would have made a difference, in the next you stating that the boats operation was not reasonable or prudent for the conditions! I dont see how you can argue that a speed limit would have mattered....

I am sure you agree that the 25MPH Speed Limit is not an absolute. There will be times and conditons on the lake when a speed much less than 25 MPH would be considered "reasonable and prudent".

The estimated speed at impact has not been released, (I am sure we will get that number in Oct) so we have no way of knowing if in fact she was traveling at a speed greater than 25 MPH! All conditions being equal, without knowing exactly how fast she was travelling, you really cant logically form an opinion if a 25MPH speed limit would have made a difference.

WinnFabs used the same argument for the Littlefield/Hartman accident. The NHMP accident team estimated that speed at 28 MPH!

All things being equal, It may be that she was travelling too fast for the conditions that night, and there is an existing rule for that. It's possible that she wasnt keeping a proper lookout (got a rule for that too) Its up for a JURY to decide what are the mitigating circumstances surrounding this accident to determine her innocence or guilt, not you, I or anyone else.

The only way one can ABSOLUTELY say the accident would not have happened was for that boat and those poor souls to have never left the dock that day!

Woodsy

[ApS]

My total absense in this thread is due to the hysteria in the opening post:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Given this article in the Laconia Daily Sun today and the quote from the bill’s sponsor regarding not waiting until next year to gather data…and the fact that the bill to eliminate the sunset of the {speed limit law} will be filed NEXT MONTH!

A bill's sponsor would know on what day to file a bill.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

My total absense in this thread is due to the hysteria in the opening post:

But you still had to post pointing out an absense.

Just razzing you a little

[fatlazyless]

So, what goes around....blah, blah, blah........comes around.


Back in 1989 the NH state legislature passed thhe state statue which makes a jetski that is 11' or longer to be consdered a boat and not a jetski. NH is the one and only state with a statute like this.


If the legislatute of 400 state reps and 24 state senators can pass that law, then for them to consider a speed limit is within their relm. It all depends on whether or not the speed limit can get a 50%+ majority.

[witchboat]

It seems strange to me that the only lake with the room to run is the one restricted. I can go to a small lake like Wentworth and do 60 mph no problem. But out in the broads with all that room we are restricted. Make no sense to me

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by witchboat

It seems strange to me that the only lake with the room to run is the one restricted. I can go to a small lake like Wentworth and do 60 mph no problem. But out in the broads with all that room we are restricted. Make no sense to me

Agreed, however it seems unlikely that the other smaller NH lakes will tolerate being the dumping grounds for the GFBL's. Suffice it to say that in a few years all of NH's lakes will have similar speed limits.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Agreed, however it seems unlikely that the other smaller NH lakes will tolerate being the dumping grounds for the GFBL's. Suffice it to say that in a few years all of NH's lakes will have similar speed limits.

it was discussed at the sand bar on Winnisquam every weekend. Winnisquam folks say 'Bring it on'! Winnisquam will take all the businesses that are suffering on Winnipesaukee!

[LDR4]

"I have seen absolutely no difference on the lake with the speed limit. I don' t
feel one bit safer, in fact, I think the 150' rule is way out of control this year and that is the one that we should worry about.
Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

I could not agreemore with his statement. I have a boat that weighs 25,000 lbs and cannot go 45 mph even if I wanted to, and I am constantly getting passed by boats within 30 to 50 feet of me! There is absolutely no consideration of the 150' rule and very little enforcement of it (due to limited resources). 99% of the boats passing within 50 feet of my boat are not even capable of going over 45 mph.
The money spent by the proponents of the Speed Limit would be much better spent on increasing the budget of the MP to allow for more enforcement and education on the lake. Some guy doing 70mph in the broads is the least of our concerns, we should be focused on the guy coming out of the channel doing 25 mph 25 feet off your port side!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by LDR4

"I have seen absolutely no difference on the lake with the speed limit. I don' t
feel one bit safer, in fact, I think the 150' rule is way out of control this year and that is the one that we should worry about.
Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

I could not agreemore with his statement. I have a boat that weighs 25,000 lbs and cannot go 45 mph even if I wanted to, and I am constantly getting passed by boats within 30 to 50 feet of me! There is absolutely no consideration of the 150' rule and very little enforcement of it (due to limited resources). 99% of the boats passing within 50 feet of my boat are not even capable of going over 45 mph.
The money spent by the proponents of the Speed Limit would be much better spent on increasing the budget of the MP to allow for more enforcement and education on the lake. Some guy doing 70mph in the broads is the least of our concerns, we should be focused on the guy coming out of the channel doing 25 mph 25 feet off your port side!

You hit the nail on the head.. Great idea as far as donating to the MP as well!!

As stated in previous threads and posts, unfortunately the proponents are not for making the lake safer with speed limits or pushing for enforcement of laws that do make the lake safer. It is to try to rid the lake of a specific type of boat in general. This is just their way of beginning that task. Otherwise they would want to see what the data that they pushed for in this 2 year trial period shows. They have shown they had no intention of wanting data but just a ploy to get the limits in place to try to make them permenant.

Well we're not buying it!

[VtSteve]

One thing about the 150' rule. I think that some people that feel boats are too close, not yourself specifically, but many boaters, don't really know what 150' is. It does get harder to measure distances on the water. I don't relate to feet on the water, but yards and miles. 150' is 50 yards. Not nearly as far as some think it is.

For my guide, I think of closer distances in golfing terms. 50 yards is a good 60 degree lob wedge for me. Someone in my boat said I "appeared" to be too close to another boat. In fact, I was about sand wedge distance, or 100 yards away. That's 300 feet, our limit is 200', quite a contrast. 50 yards seems to most people to be much further away than 150'. Mind playing tricks.

In the real world, a 150' rule needn't be rigidly applied. In tighter channels at slower speeds, common sense applies? If I had to slow to headway speed getting out of my bay every time I was closer than 200', the constant speed changes would result in tidal waves after awhile Part of the problem is that there are oftentimes a dozen or two large sailboats leaving the bay, spaced around 300' or more from each other. They form a blockade, and make boat traffic snake in and out and all around them.

This weekend is a large Laser class racing series. Ought to be interesting.

[rick35]

I can't remember how many times I've slowed for an approaching boat near the Cattle Landing only to have some bonehead pass between us or around us around 50 feet. I agree that 150 feet is difficult to judge on the water but there's no excuse at 50 feet. Add the 5 across mentality near the Cattle Landing and you've got an accident waiting to happen. I only hope it doesn't happen to me.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

One thing about the 150' rule. I think that some people that feel boats are too close, not yourself specifically, but many boaters, don't really know what 150' is. It does get harder to measure distances on the water. I don't relate to feet on the water, but yards and miles. 150' is 50 yards. Not nearly as far as some think it is.

My very first time operating a watercraft on Winni, I was launching at Glendale and an MP approached me after I had to rev the engine to avoid an engine stall. He informed me about the 150' rule (which I knew from my boating certificate) and gave me a good piece of advice.

He stated that for people with normal vision (20/20, corrected to 20/20, etc) 150' is just about the point where you can make out the bow numbers on a vessel in your vicinity.

I use this each and every time I'm on the lake.

[tis]

I was told the same thing by an MP years ago, Ryan. I think I posted it previously somewhere. I think it makes it simple.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Ryan

He stated that for people with normal vision (20/20, corrected to 20/20, etc) 150' is just about the point where you can make out the bow numbers on a vessel in your vicinity.

This is a very bad approach to use in my estimation. By the time you can read bow numbers and compehend that you are you are easily with 150' of the boat. Hence this is more of an approach to tell that someone is within 150' of you..... but not that you are within 150ft of someone else. People just need to learn to give each other room.

Speaking of room, I had an incident this weekend where some "bonehead" wouldn't give me any as I rounded a marker. I saw him and he saw me.....head on approach to some degree, and although I did my best to give him adaquate room, he made no effort what so ever to give me room...... even though he had about 1000' of room to move over into.......

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

This is a very bad approach to use in my estimation. By the time you can read bow numbers and compehend that you are you are easily with 150' of the boat. Hence this is more of an approach to tell that someone is within 150' of you..... but not that you are within 150ft of someone else. People just need to learn to give each other room.

I disagree. If you are maintaining a proper lookout and are actively maintaining a safe distance, you can take the proper actions to ensure the safety of your vessel and the people aboard. It has been beaten to death in the boating forums, but you cannot control other's actions while boating. If a passing vessel is ignorant to the rules, then shame on them.

[OCDACTIVE]

When all else fails and if you are uncertain slow to headway speed.. whats the worst thing thats going to happen? burn a little extra fuel coming back up on plane.