Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by LRSLA

This accident occurred on the ocean this past weekend/

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695

Direct link to video.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

These guys are running the same way on the inland lakes.

The reply:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

So are you implying this is happening on Lake Winni?? I've yet to see it in the 7 summers I've been here.

Now that you've asked twice, here's just one reminder of those inland waters of Wolfeboro—2 summers ago:

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

I still haven't got the connection between HP and drinking water. I know I don't drain my oil into the lake , nor do I bubble carbon monoxide though the water with my exhaust , so what's the big whoop
As far as speed limits on the highway , THERE'S NOT 150' RULE THERE. Cars have a 10 to 12 foot lane and can pass at a closing speed of 110 mph on a two lane 55 mph highway. I have yet to see a deer jump out in front of a boat.
Finally , if i didn't like my neighborhood , I'd move. You said yourself it's the biggest lake east of the Mississippi.

LIforrelaxin has the right attitude. Anything else will just give you ulcers and a lot of other people a P.I.A.

I prefer to stay in my neighborhood and see to it that standards of safety, environment and water purity are maintained. It's the people that are introducing faster, larger, noisier, polluting boats that must be kept from moving into this neighborhood.

Five states have banned recreational power boating on all drinking water sources. Many more have horsepower limits on their drinking water sources. Mass has a 10 hp limit on reservoirs. Even with MTBE free gas being sold on the lake it can be introduced by trailer boaters. MBTE attacks the central nervous system. And there are other pollutants in gas besides MTBE.

NH is one of the few states that allow unrestricted power boating on drinking water sources.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"NH is one of the few states that allow unrestricted power boating on drinking water sources."


So now you are going to push to restrict all powerboats from the lake? Is that what you are saying?


I think I will become a birch bark canoe dealer, That way I can corner the market before your proposed restrictions take place!

[Islander]

Please stop deliberately misunderstanding what I post. It's not fair and not funny.

If you have a point, make it. Trying to change my words to suit you purpose is silly.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I can't think of anything to say to hurt your cause more than you just did.
Thank You

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Islander

Please stop deliberately misunderstanding what I post. It's not fair and not funny.

If you have a point, make it. Trying to change my words to suit you purpose is silly.

Why, that is what you do on here daily. Also I am not changing your words, I was kind enought to quote you directly. I would dare say most others would read your words to mean the same I did, so therefore no "deliberate misunderstanding".

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The reply:



Now that you've asked twice, here's just one reminder of those inland waters of Wolfeboro—2 summers ago:

Where are the boats he was racing? Was the end result an accident like in the video clip? Just showing a random picture of a boat in choppy water in Wolfboro catching air doesn't relate to that video at all. Sorry but all you're "reminding" me of is how choppy lake winni can be at times!!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

I prefer to stay in my neighborhood and see to it that standards of safety, environment and water purity are maintained. It's the people that are introducing faster, larger, noisier, polluting boats that must be kept from moving into this neighborhood.

Five states have banned recreational power boating on all drinking water sources. Many more have horsepower limits on their drinking water sources. Mass has a 10 hp limit on reservoirs. Even with MTBE free gas being sold on the lake it can be introduced by trailer boaters. MBTE attacks the central nervous system. And there are other pollutants in gas besides MTBE.

NH is one of the few states that allow unrestricted power boating on drinking water sources.

That explains a lot...

and to think, we have the environmentalists to thank for its usage.

Thanks...

and its replacement, ethanol, is increasing the food prices and raising havoc with combustion engine fuel systems.

Thanks, again...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Islander

Five states have banned recreational power boating on all drinking water sources. Many more have horsepower limits on their drinking water sources. Mass has a 10 hp limit on reservoirs. Even with MTBE free gas being sold on the lake it can be introduced by trailer boaters. MBTE attacks the central nervous system. And there are other pollutants in gas besides MTBE.

I don't doubt that one bit. I also don't doubt that that are small enough 10hp could get you anywhere on the lake in a matter of minutes and a large high horse power boat could barely get to top speed before having to slow , stop or turn because they're running out of water , but don't mention that. I live in a town with a lake limited to electric trolling motors. It's all of about 5 acres.

I see exactly what you mean with the MTBE. May I suggest changing to bottled water for drinking. You know what fish do in the water

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

LIforrelaxin wrote:


Island/relaxin I understand what you are saying. The thing is, from what the Marine Patrol and anecdotal evidence suggests, excessive speed, even on the broads, is something that, if it happens, it is rare. So the folks advocating a speed limit are doing so with another goal in mind.

I think you might have missed my point here... I think the Broads should be a wide open avenue for speed.... but more then once I have had speed deamons buzz around me in tight crowded quarters. So in my mind putting speed limits in Areas like Wolfeboro Bay and Center Harbor are a good idea... putting one in around a place like the Wiers wouldn't be bad either but defining the speed zone could be rough. As for other goals the blanklet speed limit people have.... we all know what they are trying to do...

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I disagree here, who are you, or who am I to say someone can't purchase a substantial yacht and bring her onto the lake? You exempt the Mount because she's been on the lake for decades? Hell, my great grandfather lost his boat in the fire that destroyed the first Mount, the paddle wheeled steamer. (we still have my Great Grandfather's boat's flag and mount saved from the fire) So what if I wanted to become a competitor? My family certainly has just as much right and history! If someone has the money to bring in another substantially sized boat and can work a deal to moor her, who am I to say no? Who are you to say no? What makes the Mount untouchable in that case?

I should have been more clear here.... If someone wants to bring a boat to compete with the mount then yes they should have the oppertunity to do so. The mount should not be allowed a monopoly....The control needs to be on the recreational boats.......And I am sorry but my opinion is that Some of the boats on the lake have gotten to large.......but this is my opinion... and yes I know that there are many large boat owner that operate responsible.... it the ones that don't that have caused the problems.... and that is unfortunate.....

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I do not think that her bikini top got ripped off, where the heck did you get that? Part of the windshield did break loose as did a towel fly. I have read comments from people at the scene on another site, by a friend of occupants of the vessel involved. They were the other boat pictured side by side before the lead boat moved ahead for the camera shoot. It was a wave that they caught at a bad angle when they landed. Maybe you should watch it again...

Please tell me what the impact was with then if there was no wave or wake involved???

It wasn't the wave when they landed, it was the water condtions when they launched. It isn't possible to see what altered the boat's attitude in the air, causing it to land sideways. It's most likely the captain's option of going too fast for conditions. Or as you put it, "Showboating". If the cause was easy to see, the driver wouldn't have had the choice or ability, to alter his course in the air, other than inevitably landing at those high speeds on the boat's side.

The captain of the boat had no control of his boat whatsoever while he was "getting air." His passengers and crew no longer had a voice in the driver's capabilities and skills. They were now at the mercy of brutal physics. These "performance boats" have heavily bolstered interiors and seats to protect the passengers against injury. But operating at high speed, zero control in the air, and uncertain waters below wrote the ending even before the helicoper started to record it. Winnipesaukee saw at least three similar high speed crashes in three successive summer seasons. None on Winnipesaukee were videotaped.

Would the other site admit to seeing an injured passenger, not just with a triple fracture of her pelvis, but being naked too? Look again at the video, especially at 1:03 and 1:18. The video ends at 1:23. Use the "pause" feature and don't make the common mistake of enlarging the screen for clarity, please.

There's no denying the windshield gets ripped away by the impacting force of the water. It's tinted, and was launched to fly very high above the boat. The same sudden thrust of water that tore off the windshield ripped the bikini top upwards close to the glass fragment in the air. Or what her friends call a towel. If it's a towel, it's a towel that stays in the shape of a bikini top.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

I don't doubt that one bit. I also don't doubt that that are small enough 10hp could get you anywhere on the lake in a matter of minutes and a large high horse power boat could barely get to top speed before having to slow , stop or turn because they're running out of water , but don't mention that. I live in a town with a lake limited to electric trolling motors. It's all of about 5 acres.

I see exactly what you mean with the MTBE. May I suggest changing to bottled water for drinking. You know what fish do in the water

You are wrong again. Quabbin Reservoir is a comparable size and shape with Winnipesaukee. 39 square miles to 69 square miles. It has a 10 hp limit.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

You are wrong again. Quabbin Reservoir is a comparable size and shape with Winnipesaukee. 39 square miles to 69 square miles. It has a 10 hp limit.

Yes, if you enjoy comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by dcr: Quabbin Reservoir

Things to know before you go
The primary purpose of DCR water and surrounding lands is drinking water supply. Public access, therefore, is carefully regulated and controlled to protect over 2 million people’s source of drinking water. State regulations require all entry and exit through gates or other designated areas only. Anything that could pollute the water supply system, such as litter or refuse of any sort, is prohibited. Please observe restrictions on recreational activities. Direct water contact activities, such as swimming and wading, are strictly prohibited by regulation.

URL link:http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/quabbin.htm

Yes, that definitely reads as if it were written with the Lake in mind...

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Islander

You are wrong again. Quabbin Reservoir is a comparable size and shape with Winnipesaukee. 39 square miles to 69 square miles. It has a 10 hp limit.

Quabbin also has a protected watershed with almost all development prohibited. If that had been put into place on Winni, you wouldn't live on Bear Island, Laconia would not be a tourist town, and none of us would be on here in the first place.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...If that had been put into place on Winni, you wouldn't live on Bear Island, Laconia would not be a tourist town, and none of us would be on here in the first place...."

Oh, I think it'd be plenty crowded.

The lake is too good a tourist-draw to have remained uncrowded: it's future likely to have been in State or Federal control.

The state would have put up lodges and provided buses for tours. All the surrounding towns would profit via their restaurants, touristy cabin-motels, video rentals, RV campsites and small-boat rentals. Summer camps for kids would be given special exemptions for zoning and taxes. Existing lakeside and hillside residences from the time the park was established would be allowed to remain throughout the lives of the original owners, then bulldozed after a eminent domain purchase. (As is done now in many locales).

Mt. Washington boat tours would be booked for months in advance and private tourist boats—operated by retirees—would take those turned away.

The entire Lake Winnipesaukee Basin would have become a State or National Park. Forests would go to "Old Growth" and the surrounding hillsides restricted to woods with only selective cutting. There would have been official and private camping sites scattered about—with clearings for nature trails, overlooks, and educational exhibits. Even snowmobile access could have been limited—as in Yellowstone Park National Park recently.

To retain the quietude of Thoreau's time, to protect the shorelines, to keep the air pristine, to ensure tourists' safety, to protect loons, to continuously-project its alpine and native-American ambiance, "On Golden Pond National Park" would prohibit the launching of "extreme boats" onto its waters.

[Islander]

The only difference between Quabbin and Winni is the degree of protection they receive. Quabbin is well protect against the pollution of boats. Winni is poorly protected against boat pollution. That does not mean they are inherently different, it means Winni needs more protection from out of control boating, and she is going to get it.

The number of people served by the water supply doesn't make any difference. Is it OK to pollute the water because the number of people that drink it is relatively small. Obviously not!

I can still get to the island with a 10 hp. For a few islanders that is the only boat they have.

Hopefully swimming etc will never have to be banned on Winni. But tighter regulations on lake use are happening all the time. Check out the new shore land protection act. Get used to it!

However I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that because making Winni exactly like Quabbin would be odious, then we can't make Winni even a little like Quabbin? That argument does not follow.

Your argument was that boating did nothing to pollute drinking water. That turned out to be false. Your argument had been that only tiny reservoirs had speed limits. That turned out to be false. You argument is boating need not be regulated on Winni. That is also false.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Islander

Your argument was that boating did nothing to pollute drinking water. That turned out to be false. Your argument had been that only tiny reservoirs had speed limits. That turned out to be false. You argument is boating need not be regulated on Winni. That is also false.

And this is all true in "your" way of thinking and half truths
First off Winnis 72 square miles the last time I checked , not 69 sq. mi. as you posted. Given your other half truths I would doubt the 39 sq mi is correct too. Probably more like 36 which is half the size.
Now excuse me for a couple of hours while I go stir up some water and make some noise.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

And this is all true in "your" way of thipedia says.nking and half truths
First off Winnis 72 square miles the last time I checked , not 69 sq. mi. as you posted. Given your other half truths I wouldi doubt the 39 sq mi is correct too. Probably more like 36 which is half the size.
Now excuse me for a couple of hours while I go skitir up some water and make some noise.

It's great that with all the points I made you only find fault with the size of the lake.

Winni is 69 square miles, if you want to include Paugus it is 71, at least that is what Wikipedia says.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Islander

It's great that with all the points I made you only find fault with the size of the lake.

Winni is 69 square miles, if you want to include Paugus it is 71, at least that is what Wikipedia says.

Trust me , I could and a lot of others continually find a LOT of faults and half truths. I try to keep it nice and keep most of my thoughts to myself as do many others.
BTW , check the Winnipesaukee.com home page. 72 square miles

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified all words, term and phrases in the above document are used in their generic or every day meaning.
Example: "lives" does not necessarily imply permanent legal residence registered with the Secretary of State, but may simply imply a home where a person or persons takes up residence for an indefinite period.

Every post of yours that I read now has this disclaimer, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it means. The disclaimer is straight forward enough. It's the example that blows me away. I live ( ITD "lives" if someone else were describing it) in a small town in Massachusetts. I would never tell anyone that I live on Lake Winnipesaukee because I know that that would be misleading. I would say something to the effect of " I stay at the lake during the summer." Which I actually do say regularly to my neighbors or anyone who needs to know. Furthermore, you say "...takes up residence for an indefinite period." . Couldn't indefinite mean an unlimited period? I think it may have been better to use finite instead of infinite. Anyway I know you don't like people parsing your words, but I don't consider your use of "lives" as the "generic or everyday meaning".

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

It wasn't the wave when they landed, it was the water condtions when they launched. It isn't possible to see what altered the boat's attitude in the air, causing it to land sideways. It's most likely the captain's option of going too fast for conditions. Or as you put it, "Showboating". If the cause was easy to see, the driver wouldn't have had the choice or ability, to alter his course in the air, other than inevitably landing at those high speeds on the boat's side.

The captain of the boat had no control of his boat whatsoever while he was "getting air." His passengers and crew no longer had a voice in the driver's capabilities and skills. They were now at the mercy of brutal physics. These "performance boats" have heavily bolstered interiors and seats to protect the passengers against injury. But operating at high speed, zero control in the air, and uncertain waters below wrote the ending even before the helicoper started to record it. Winnipesaukee saw at least three similar high speed crashes in three successive summer seasons. None on Winnipesaukee were videotaped.

Would the other site admit to seeing an injured passenger, not just with a triple fracture of her pelvis, but being naked too? Look again at the video, especially at 1:03 and 1:18. The video ends at 1:23. Use the "pause" feature and don't make the common mistake of enlarging the screen for clarity, please.

There's no denying the windshield gets ripped away by the impacting force of the water. It's tinted, and was launched to fly very high above the boat. The same sudden thrust of water that tore off the windshield ripped the bikini top upwards close to the glass fragment in the air. Or what her friends call a towel. If it's a towel, it's a towel that stays in the shape of a bikini top.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

We can bicker back and forth all you want on this, but I think that the opinions of the people that were actually at the Poker Run as well as friends of the occupants account of the accident hold a lot more water than your opinions.

By the way, you are wrong about the windsheld as well. Sunsation has two windshield options on that boat, a solid painted fairing which is a molded part of the top deck and will not come off, or a completely clear windhshield that screws down like on any other boat. The boat had a clear windshield. Your monitor must be tinted...

[Islander]

I was referring to someone else in the original post.

"The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island"

I guess I could have said

"The new Senator for this area stays on Bear Island"

I doesn't make any difference to me, It shouldn't make any difference to anyone else.

You people only care because you think it is an error I have made that you can exploit. The reality is you are pissed! You are on the losing side of an argument you hate to lose. Your arguments do not stand up again real data, real deaths, political reality and public opinion. In your hearts you know the speed limit will pass this time and nothing you can do will stop it. And this has you really pissed.

I can't do this anymore, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. And I am starting to feel sorry for the fish. I hope you all still find this beautiful lake a wonderful place to come to even with a speed limit.

That long beautiful pirate boat went by a while ago, you know the one, it has a skull and cross bones on the side. The people inside were waving and having a great time. I hope things like that never leave this lake.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Sunsation has two windshield options on that boat, a solid painted fairing which is a molded part of the top deck and will not come off, or a completely clear windhshield that screws down like on any other boat. The boat had a clear windshield. Your monitor must be tinted...

There are aftermarket windshield tints even in New Hampshire, and these injuries were done by a hotdogging showboater in Florida. If you won't review the video, no one can lead you to see with your eyes what you have already accepted in faith.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

[Airwaves]

Island/Relaxin wrote:

but more then once I have had speed demons buzz around me in tight crowded quarters. So in my mind putting speed limits in Areas like Wolfeboro Bay and Center Harbor are a good idea... putting one in around a place like the Wiers wouldn't be bad either but defining the speed zone could be rough. As for other goals the blanket speed limit people have.... we all know what they are trying to do...

I believe that has more to do with a violation of the 150' no wake zone than speeding boats doesn't it? As you saying these boats were buzzing around you at greater than 45 miles an hour?

A speed limit zone around the Weirs? Again, I think you might be confusing the need for a speed limit with enforcement of the 150' rule. To tell you the truth I've never seen anyone going 45 or above at the Weirs.

Island/Relaxin wrote:

And I am sorry but my opinion is that Some of the boats on the lake have gotten to large.......but this is my opinion... and yes I know that there are many large boat owner that operate responsible.... it the ones that don't that have caused the problems.... and that is unfortunate.....

How large is too large? Are you talking style of boat (cruiser v cigarette style) or are you talking tonnage? There are some large cruisers on the lake but nothing really outrageous. I got the impression you're going after cruisers only because of your comments about exempting the Mount.

As I have said many times, enforcement of existing laws will solve the problems the speed limit crowd has without additional laws or spending the limited funds the Marine Patrol has on a law that it appears data collected and anecdotal evidence shows isn't needed. So enforce the laws we have and get those few operators that you cite into compliance and everyone is happy.

I was going to respond to a number of Islanders comments about limiting power on a "drinking water supply" but they have become just too ridiculous!

I now believe she is writing these posts to be intentionally outrageous to push buttons! Good one!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

There are aftermarket windshield tints even in New Hampshire, and these injuries were done by a hotdogging showboater in Florida. If you won't review the video, no one can lead you to see with your eyes what you have already accepted in faith.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was the one that stated he was showboating... Pushing the edge. Never said that he wasn't. Some of your claims though are embellishing the situation a bit.

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

No other boats were came close to colliding with each other. When he took the lead no other boats were even pictured! Aftermarket tints on the boat? You could pick this out in the midst of the accident? Gimme a break.

Check out the following link, the accident victims were actually the ones that released the video to promote safety/ No cover up there...

http://destinsharks.com/photo-and-video/196#more-196

A quote from the link:

"As the video shows, the boat was driving mostly south at high speed into the mouth of Destin Pass were it ‘hooked’ after landing from a big wave jump. Destin Pass, like most passes, is subject to unpredictable wave patterns due to tide/wind conflicts, shallowing water, and busy boating traffic by vessels of all sizes."

If you would like to contact ACTUAL people at the poker run that can attest to weather/water conditions and the proximity of other boats in the area I am sure I can point you in the right direction. Lets agree to disagree and move on. Isn't this thread supposed to be about Winnipesaukee anyway?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

I was referring to someone else in the original post.

"The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island"

I guess I could have said

"The new Senator for this area stays on Bear Island"

I doesn't make any difference to me, It shouldn't make any difference to anyone else.

You people only care because you think it is an error I have made that you can exploit. The reality is you are pissed! You are on the losing side of an argument you hate to lose. Your arguments do not stand up again real data, real deaths, political reality and public opinion. In your hearts you know the speed limit will pass this time and nothing you can do will stop it. And this has you really pissed.

I can't do this anymore, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. And I am starting to feel sorry for the fish. I hope you all still find this beautiful lake a wonderful place to come to even with a speed limit.

That long beautiful pirate boat went by a while ago, you know the one, it has a skull and cross bones on the side. The people inside were waving and having a great time. I hope things like that never leave this lake.

The only thing that irritates me is when people lie or twist the truth for their own personal agenda. Little by little we extracted the truth out of you. You don't like loud boats, you don't like wakes, you don't want GFBL boats in front of your house. You want the lake all to yourself. The speed limit is first, then you want the cabin cruisers gone, finally you seem to be advocating for a 10 horsepower limit.

Here's a little bit of news for you, it's a big lake, you're going to have to keep sharing it with many people. Most of them are good people, a few are inconsiderate jerks. You want more laws because in the past a few jerks have not obeyed the laws already in place. The speed limit won't work. My opinion (see, that's what you say when your trying to be honest, you should give it a try sometime) is that a speed limit will make the lake more dangerous. We're not going to get more MP to set up speed traps, so the ones that patrol now will be assigned to sitting in a hiding spot, trying to catch someone going over 45mph. Problem is that their are few, if any going that fast so stops will be few and far between. So you or someone like you, insistent that you can't be wrong, will start demanding more MP resources be committed to speed traps.

Anyway, please do stop posting, I need a break from pointing out your incorrect assumptions and conclusions.

BTW,
"The new Senator for this area stays on Bear Island" is the truth, your other statement just like most of your "facts" just doesn't cut it.


Finally, that long pirate boat you're talking about, is a very fast GFBL boat, I find it funny that you "hope things like that never leave this lake", it is exactly what you are trying to run out.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ITD

Finally, that long pirate boat you're talking about, is a very fast GFBL boat, I find it funny that you "hope things like that never leave this lake", it is exactly what you are trying to run out.

Not sure I'd take that boat very far offshore. It's more like a loud (in more ways than one) deck boat. It's quite a bit different than the 51' 9", blue and white Nor-Tech that's been out and about this year which may be the biggest GFBL I've seen on the lake yet and certainly an easy target for the speed limit proponents. I don't know the name of the boat, but it says "Londonderry New Hampshire" on the transom.

That said, that Londonderry Nor-Tech wasn't loud (so GFBQ??) and sure throws a tiny wake for a 50+ foot boat. I was shocked when I crossed it's wake a couple of weeks ago while it was cruising at an estimated 50 MPH and I could not really hear it nor did the wake affect me any more than typical chop. I hope boats like THAT never leave the lake. It's dripping with sophistication and class.

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Where are the boats he was racing? Was the end result an accident like in the video clip? Just showing a random picture of a boat in choppy water in Wolfboro catching air doesn't relate to that video at all. Sorry but all you're "reminding" me of is how choppy lake winni can be at times!!

You are correct KonaChick.......I WAS ON the boat when the pic was taken, choppy day going about 50 mph with the trim up. We were not racing, in the 25 years I've been on Lake Winni I've never been in a 'boat race'. So I wish the speed limit supporters would quit putting up this picture and trying to claim we were speeding or racing.....because we weren't. It's simply another day on the lake enjoying the ride. We were away from the shore and probably 500 feet from any other boat. Not breaking any laws or even going fast. This is a perfect example of how perception IS NOT reality.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

It's simply another day on the lake enjoying the ride. We were away from the shore and probably 500 feet from any other boat. Not breaking any laws or even going fast. This is a perfect example of how perception IS NOT reality.

We are on the broads side of RSI and can testify that after many many observations of boats going by, there seems to be an almost universal correlation between the speed of the boats and the distance they keep from shore and other boats. It must be a matter of human instinct since it seems so universally observed. My rough estimation is that less than 5 percent of boats above 40MPH are racing. It does happen and we do enjoy it. Even the racing boats are 200-300+ feet apart. Much more likely to see 150 rule violations on boats below 40MPH.

We also see boats with what seems like barley more than the prop in the water quite routinely. Looks like fun. Wish my boat could do that. The rougher the water the more likely the boats will ride a bit higher. We have observed that boats don't have to be going especially fast for them to get air. (I know some on the forum would say that above 30 is fast, to them I would say, yes it was above 30)

I would also say that the thing that seems to slow a fast boat most is if rough water lifts the prop too high. Most don't seem to want to risk the investment if the boat is not properly engaged with the water. I don't know if it's concern over control or lack of load on the prop but it does seem to be the natural limit the lake puts on everyone.

I find the operators of the boats going fast past our place to be paying much better attention to what's going on than the average boater. Out of self preservation they seem to avoid the unpredictable things in front of them.

[Phantom]

Kewl Pic-- bbarrell

Wish someone could snap one off of our boat like that !!

Damn, ours is only a bowrider, probably wouldn't look all that great anyway

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Kewl Pic-- bbarrell
Wish someone could snap one off of our boat like that !!
Damn, ours is only a bowrider, probably wouldn't look all that great anyway

Well, Dave R's boat only goes 50-MPH: both of you could come over and I'll snap a few shots of you both on the edge of control. (Or airborne, and not in control at all).

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Where are the boats he was racing?

I turned right 90°, and photographed these two: four boats in a 500' space between the markers. (Two being anchored).

[SIKSUKR]

Great picture but what's your point?If the boats were too close that's a violation.You certainly can't tell from the photo that these boats are going more than the proposed speed limit.Why would Dave's boat be "on the edge of control" as you put it because it goes 50 mph.Maybe your sailboat would be on the edge of control at 15 knots and could take out a kayker or someone in a canoe.I believe sailboats have the right of way because they are at the mercy of the wind,have less control than a powerboat,and certainly have a much more obstructed view with all the sails and rigging.
There's plenty of room for every type of pleasure craft on this lake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

.Why would Dave's boat be "on the edge of control" as you put it because it goes 50 mph?

Because I once wrote something like: "my boat feels "twitchy" above 50 MPH".

It's irrelevant now though because that boat has been used in IL/MN for the past three seasons by the guy who bought it from me in 2005; and I'm in a different boat now that just breaks 50 MPH on a good day. The new boat feels completely planted at WOT, or any other speed. The old boat was a lot more fun though, I miss it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second
I turned right 90°, and photographed these two: [I

four [/I]boats in a 500' space between the markers. (Two being anchored).

It's amazing how the lack of "depth of field" can make pictures appear. But any reasonably intelligent person will realize this

[jrc]

My boat feels twitchy at 5mph in the Weirs channel, am I on the edge of control? If I slow down it gets worse, but if I speed up it gets better.

Should I fight for increased speeds in the channel?

BTW the last sentence is a joke, I really don't mean it, really. Please don't quote me later and say one speed limit opponent advocates speeding in the channel.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Well, Dave R's boat only goes 50-MPH: both of you could come over and I'll snap a few shots of you both on the edge of control. (Or airborne, and not in control at all).



I turned right 90°, and photographed these two: four boats in a 500' space between the markers. (Two being anchored).

APS, I did a careful and painstaking analysis of your picture and came up with the following results:

Assumption, the guy standing on the boat is 6 feet tall.

Observation,

1. From the bottom edge of the picture to the first white boat would take 6 guys stacked one on top of the other to fill in the space.

2. Only one guy will fit between the two white boats

3. The boats are pointed directly at each other in this picture.

4. The guy in the picture was fishing for Mahi.


Conclusion,

1. Since you stated that their was 500' between markers, that aren't even in the picture and only 6 guys at 6 feet fit in the space from the edge of the picture to the boat you were in, only 36 feet from the other boats in violation of the 150' rule.

2 and 3. Since only one guy fits between the boats (6 feet) and they were pointed at each other there was a collision and ensuing explosion in which no one including yourself survived.

4. The guy was fishing for Mahi because it would be as accurate as all the other assumptions you could draw from a picture like this.

Your picture is useless and shows nothing but a couple boats out on the lake.

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Well, Dave R's boat only goes 50-MPH: both of you could come over and I'll snap a few shots of you both on the edge of control. (Or airborne, and not in control at all).



I turned right 90°, and photographed these two: four boats in a 500' space between the markers. (Two being anchored).

When you say you turned right 90 degrees are you implying my boat and these 3 others were all within 500 feet? I can't speak for the 3 others but mine wasn't next to them. This is a totally different pic of 3 different boats from across the other side of the shore. My boat isn't in that pic, not even sure if this pic was taken on the same day or in the same area? And I only see 1 anchored. I do agree though those 3 boats appear too close although you can't judge speed or distance from a pic that far away.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

When you say you turned right 90 degrees are you implying my boat and these 3 others were all within 500 feet? I can't speak for the 3 others but mine wasn't next to them. This is a totally different pic of 3 different boats from across the other side of the shore. My boat isn't in that pic, not even sure if this pic was taken on the same day or in the same area? And I only see 1 anchored. I do agree though those 3 boats appear too close although you can't judge speed or distance from a pic that far away.

Isn't it interesting that the hulls of these boats are way straight on top of the water? I smell photo shop
seriously though, this looks very super-imposed

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Isn't it interesting that the hulls of these boats are way straight on top of the water? I smell photo shop
seriously though, this looks very super-imposed

Very suspicious

[ApS]

From other Internet photoshopping questions, I understand that such changes can be detected by examining the enlarged edges of the suspect object for "blurring". Since I use only film—with no pixilations whatsoever—you're welcome to check for any and all irregularities: prepare for disappointment.

"Lack of depth of field" would indicate one object sharply in focus, with the foreground and/or background being out of focus. This photo has great depth of field: everything is in focus.

Originally Posted by bbarrell

When you say you turned right 90 degrees are you implying my boat and these 3 others were all within 500 feet? I can't speak for the 3 others but mine wasn't next to them. This is a totally different pic of 3 different boats from across the other side of the shore. My boat isn't in that pic, not even sure if this pic was taken on the same day or in the same area? And I only see 1 anchored. I do agree though those 3 boats appear too close although you can't judge speed or distance from a pic that far away.

You may recall that this was a 2005 Poker Run. Your recollection after two years of your exact speed is truly remarkable.

It's also reassuring to know that a pleasureboat can still "showboat" at only 50-MPH. And we all know that "a Poker Run is not a Race". Your boat's photo may have followed the other photo. Boating, even by weekend standards, was especially hectic.

However, it was still a signature moment for me, as I was one of the two small stationary boats between the two markers, located in the sudden Poker Run rush. As the fisherman in the photo stated here:

"It looks like my boat. If it was on July 30, 2005 outside of Winter Harbor it is me. The Marine Patrol came by for 1/2 an hour and those boats didn't buzz me at that point but as soon as the MP left it was back to the way the picture is."

Not one, but two, MP boats appeared together—perhaps someone on shore called them in. I was close enough to shore at one point to have a resident (a stranger to me) ask me if I wanted to borrow his video camera!

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

"...There's plenty of room for every type of pleasure craft on this lake..."

There was a time I'd have agreed with you. Among a new generation of boaters, "pleasure" has a whole new meaning.

[Phantom]

Aren't we now considered WAY OFF topic as the thread was "Speed Limit Test Zones now Dead in the Water" -- and finally end this thread till there is more news on the topic.

Another Great boating action shot !!!

Perhaps you can start a thread for Action Shot pic's (just an off the wall thought) as I truely like to follow the "News" through this forum yet unfortunately find important topical threads like this get bogged down with "off Topic" material.

Great Photo's ----- means nothing with regards to speed, spacing, or more importantly -->> "Speed Limit Test Zones now Dead in the Water"

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You may recall that this was a 2005 Poker Run. Your recollection after two years of your exact speed is truly remarkable.

It's also reassuring to know that a pleasureboat can still "showboat" at only 50-MPH. And we all know that "a Poker Run is not a Race". Your boat's photo may have followed the other photo. Boating, even by weekend standards, was especially hectic.

Um, you've got your facts wrong. I didn't participate in the 2005 Poker Run. Or 2006, or 2007.......
And remembering my speed isn't hard because we drive at about the same speed in open water most of the time 45-50 mph....my boat doesn't go much faster than that (contrary to popular belief, it tops out around 65mph and loses maximum speed capacity every year).

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

Um, you've got your facts wrong. I didn't participate in the 2005 Poker Run.

Sorry bbarrell but there's just no way APS is wrong, it has to be your mistake!

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Sorry bbarrell but there's just no way APS is wrong, it has to be your mistake!

Yeah, maybe I blacked out that day....or possibly I have a twin that drives the same boat. More likely APS assumes every boat on the lake that's a power boat participated in the Poker Run that day if they were on the water going over 20 mph. More support for my 'perception is not reality' theory.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Sorry bbarrell but there's just no way APS is wrong, it has to be your mistake!

It may only be a coincidence that the "buzzing" of the other boats around me coincided with this photo. I could be very wrong...so I ask you: what is your understanding of the following?

What does bbarrell really mean when he wrote:

"I was 'ON' THE BOAT"
"We weren't racing"
"I wasn't "participating" in the Poker Run"
"...possibly I have a twin who "drives" the same boat". (Makes bbarrell the driver, doesn't it?)

We're led to questions like the following:

1) Was he a passenger in a boat whose driver wasn't registered in the Poker Run?
2) Was he the driver in a boat whose driver wasn't registered in the Poker Run? (Or hadn't paid).
3) Was he in a Poker Run in 2005 and mistook it for 2004? (when he remembers not being in one—or at least not being "a participant").
4) Is bbarrell the "driver", owner, or a passenger? (A passenger may—or may not—be a registered "participant").
5) How could this boat be identified as the boat he was on (or "driving")? It looks just like many other boats with three aboard.

I must ask because both photos are from the middle of an entire roll of film that was gone in about an hour. Perhaps I could e-mail the file to a neutral forum member for corroboration.

It is said "there are no coincidences", but there were so many ocean-racers that day operating at similar speeds and traveling on the same pathways. (And no shortage of Jet-Skis trying unsuccessfully to catch them).

Originally Posted by bbarrell

"...And I only see 1 anchored..."

All twenty-three photos were taken from my anchored powerboat, positioned 150-feet from the marker to get a closeup. Those two ocean-racers passed to the far side of the fishermen, but I have another 20 photos taken that day.

Originally Posted by bbarrell

"...So I wish the speed limit supporters would quit putting up this picture and trying to claim we were speeding or racing.....because we weren't.

There is no speeding law; however, my NH Boaters Guide describes the following:

"Reckless operation is the failure to exercise the degree of care necessary to prevent the endangering of another person or their property. It can be the result of operator ignorance, carelessness, inattention, or indifference."
—NH Boaters Guide

With a few tons of airborne boat—unable to stop or turn—I wouldn't admit to being "the driver" either.


BTW: Both photos have a widespread and interesting history. I think every concerned NH Legislator received a copy of them last year.

Some disregarded their significance to the "Unlimited Speeds" issue prior to the election, and are employed differently today.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I won't spoil the fun I will let bbarell break the news to you.

The only history those photos have is the one you made up yourself.

[KonaChick]

APS you have waaaaaaaaay to much time on your hands..my suggestion is to take up a hobby, preferably NOT photography!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

APS you have waaaaaaaaay to much time on your hands..my suggestion is to take up a hobby, preferably NOT photography!

Maybe APS should write fiction??? Definitely getting plenty of practice here!

[Airwaves]

I doubt it!

My family has been on Lake Winnipesaukee for just about a century! Yep, 100 years! With the exception of a sanctioned race a number of years ago that involved the MP and even the Mount Washington, I have never NEVER seen an ocean racer on this lake!

A Go Fast boat is not an ocean racer! What is an offshore racer?

http://www.amfoffshoreracing.com/

APS wrote:

there were so many ocean-racers that day operating at similar speeds and traveling on the same pathways. (And no shortage of Jet-Skis trying unsuccessfully to catch them).

Where are they? I assume you must have knowledge of each marina on the lake where these boats berth? I assume you would certainly know exactly where each of these monster boats are located privately, right? Because you and your supporters would have certainly spoken to them before trying tryin to change a state law that would impact everyone, right?? Right!

It's time to get the facts staight. There are no ocean racers on this lake! This is no speed problem on this lake! There are only folks who want to elimiate an entire class of boaters/people from this lake!

I the no speed crowd persists, I would be willing to lead an effort to eliminate kayaks and canoes from Winnipesaukee since they are responsible for the majority of accidents and rescues!

Talk among yourselves

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Phantom

"...Aren't we now considered WAY OFF topic as the thread was 'Speed Limit Test Zones now Dead in the Water'..."

OK, as a followup to my post #3, the Broads-side of Rattlesnake Island (which bore the brunt of the Test Zone avoiders) now has more houses for sale than I've ever seen before. The air is rich in hydrocarbon emissions there.

It's nice that the speeders stayed 150' offshore from Rattlesnake, but at least two huge sentinel boulders 100' off its northern shore act as submarine enforcement.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...The only history those photos have is the one you made up yourself..."

New Hampshire Legislators received the photos directly from me—via USPS. A few weren't impressed enough, I guess.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...my suggestion is to take up a hobby, preferably NOT photography...!"

Too late: here's one looking back towards the other marker.

[Winnipesaukee]

I was sailing today (although not on Winni, but have had similar experiences on the Big Lake) and thought I'd go back to the dock to grab my camera to shoot something that had happened several times already, but was afraid I'd get it wet from the wake of a boat passing very few feet off my bow. I also felt the need to have my hands free to prevent the boat from capsizing from said wake and dropping the mast on said boat.

In my opinion, I think the problem is a combination of speed and boat wakes.

If a boater wants to be able to do 90 in the middle of the Broads on a weekday, that should be allowed to, but one doing 40 in the Weirs area on the 4th of July weekend should not be; therefore, I feel that passing legislature for a blanket 45/25 is not a good idea. Like most issues in our great country, the end legislature usually falls into a "happy medium." Oh, the beauty of checks and balences.

Somthing like a law stating that a boater may not operate "recklessly" would work for me. But how can we define "recklessly?"

This might be a good point of reference. RSA 636:2.

(c) ""Recklessly.'' A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of having voluntarily engaged in intoxication or hypnosis also acts recklessly with respect thereto.
(d) ""Negligently.'' A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he fails to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to become aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

I think something has to be done, but not as extreme as a blanket 45/25 law or nothing at all. In addition, I think the "150-foot rule" needs to be more heavily enforced.

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

What does bbarrell really mean when he wrote:

"I was 'ON' THE BOAT"
"We weren't racing"
"I wasn't "participating" in the Poker Run"
"...possibly I have a twin who "drives" the same boat". (Makes bbarrell the driver, doesn't it?)

We're led to questions like the following:

1) Was he a passenger in a boat whose driver wasn't registered in the Poker Run?
2) Was he the driver in a boat whose driver wasn't registered in the Poker Run? (Or hadn't paid).
3) Was he in a Poker Run in 2005 and mistook it for 2004? (when he remembers not being in one—or at least not being "a participant").
4) Is bbarrell the "driver", owner, or a passenger? (A passenger may—or may not—be a registered "participant").
5) How could this boat be identified as the boat he was on (or "driving")? It looks just like many other boats with three aboard.

.

I was on the boat as a passenger that day...and last time I checked I was a 'she' not a 'he'. We were not participating (registered or otherwise) in the Poker Run, didn't even know it was happening. I've seen you post this pic several times and if you simply zoom in on it, it's clear it's my boat. I can see myself, my husband, and my friend in the pic. You can even see the Boston Red Sox cap I'm wearing. I agree with the other poster, we should start a new thread 'APS greatest hits' and post all your wanna be speeding pics out there.

[Cal]

With that amount of boat in the water it could be doing 30 mph and a zoom lens distorts distances and depth so you should put this picture on your dart board and use it for practice because that's all it's worth

[ApS]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...I won't spoil the fun I will let bbarell break the news to you..."

Not exactly a blockbuster, was it?

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

"...I think something has to be done, but not as extreme as a blanket 45/25 law or nothing at all..."

Well, we know what didn't work:

"Good skippers know the rules of the water and make sure they are followed. They use caution and consideration when mixing noise, speed and smoke with the gentle, refreshing, relaxing life on the water".
—New Hampshire Boaters Guide 2001
Department of Safety
10 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I assume you would certainly know exactly where each of these monster boats are located privately, right? Because you and your supporters would have certainly spoken to them before trying tryin to change a state law that would impact everyone, right...??

WinnFABS' outlook is different: I have much less of a gripe with the bass-boaters, who have a longer history of safety, respect for our waters, and abstinence than the ocean-racers who are trailered in.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...APS you have waaaaaaaaay to much time on your hands..."

Wait 'til the rest of the Boomers retire here.

[Phantom]

Acres per Second --

Enough is Enough !!!

Give your keyboard a rest for a week or two, take a trip to the mountains, see a movie or two, play with the kids (or grandkids), visit relatives - preferably out of state, or whatever

But STOP draggin this Forum down

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Wait 'til the rest of the Boomers retire here.

Speak for yourself. I may be 60 but I still haven't grown up(or old)

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

WinnFABS' outlook is different: I have much less of a gripe with the bass-boaters, who have a longer history of safety, respect for our waters, and abstinence than the ocean-racers who are trailered in.


Wait 'til the rest of the Boomers retire here.

Let's see, you use pictures that were taken with a telescopic lens and tell us it shows how dangerous it is out there when in fact it shows nothing because photos like that distort distances. To get those pictures you stop your boat in a "500 foot" channel, with your boat "150 feet from the marker" along with two other boats that are stopped or anchored. Talk about creating a problem to make your point. You do this on a busy day yet pontificate about how other boaters are inconsiderate and dangerous, I think you should look in the mirror, but then again, the end justifies the means with you people.

Six sights were tested, only two announced publicly and Dir Barrett tells us that essentially there is no speed problem and that some people sitting on their islands see a boat going by and mistakenly assume it is going fast.

You've had your chance to prove your case and you have not. Let's see if the legislature can see through this fear mongering and twisting of the truth. They did once already, we'll see if these newbies have any guts and integrity.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

WinnFABS' outlook is different: I have much less of a gripe with the bass-boaters, who have a longer history of safety, respect for our waters, and abstinence than the ocean-racers who are trailered in.

Have you ever driven in a bass boat? There is nothing safe about them. I drove a 17' Skeeter with a 150hp Yamaha on it, it was capable of 70+mph and did not steer at all above 55mph. It hardly touches the water. You would be much safer in an "ocean racer" doing 70mph. Ever watch the bass boats in the broads on a rough fall morning? Most of these yahoos should not even be driving boats.

I am sure a quick search of bass boat related accidents will turn up plenty, as a matter of fact an executive for Brunswick Corp (Sea Ray) lost his life in a bass boat related accident where it collided with a ski boat.

http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fis...3/sea_ray.html

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:

WinnFABS' outlook is different: I have much less of a gripe with the bass-boaters, who have a longer history of safety, respect for our waters, and abstinence than the ocean-racers who are trailered in

OCEAN RACERS http://www.amfoffshoreracing.com/ aren't trailered anywhere! They are shipped in specially designed vehicles.

So outside of that one sanctioned race that I recall a number of years ago, when did you ever see an ocean racer on Lake Winnipesaukee?

BTW, you didn't answer the question, do you know where these MONSTER boats are berthed and have you spoken with the owners/marina operators???

[ApS]

Quotes by codeman671:

1) Have you ever driven in a bass boat?
2) There is nothing safe about them.
3)...it was capable of 70+mph and did not steer at all above 55mph.
4) It hardly touches the water.
5) Most of these yahoos should not even be driving boats.
6)...a bass boat related accident where it collided with a ski boat

Holy Moly! Whose side are you on?

7) You would be much safer in an "ocean racer" doing 70mph.

The above quote is why the Unlimited-Speeds people don't get it and have zero empathy for the others afloat on the lake:

It's not how you feel about your own safety, it's how unsafe everybody else feels while afloat in the path of a 70-MPH boat.


Most of "those invisible kayaks" are longer than the boat in this photo, and this boat was right where bbarrell's airborne Baja went by in 2005: we have testimony that a 4-ton boat can become airborne at "only" 50-MPH.

Fortunately, this photo was taken two weeks ago. Unfortunately, we weren't in any test zone.


And yes, that's a young girl swimming behind them—doing a "long swim".

Maybe the 45-MPH daytime limit is set too high for our waters.

I have many more photos, but unless there are more questions, I now yield the floor to those WinnFABS supporters who have had a well-deserved rest.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

OCEAN RACERS http://www.amfoffshoreracing.com/ aren't trailered anywhere! They are shipped in specially designed vehicles.

So outside of that one sanctioned race that I recall a number of years ago, when did you ever see an ocean racer on Lake Winnipesaukee?

BTW, you didn't answer the question, do you know where these MONSTER boats are berthed and have you spoken with the owners/marina operators???

Don't be sure thos boats aren't pulled around on trailers.... they have Custom Haulers and custom built trailers...But nothing I would call specially designed.. they are far from being shipped like cargo...especially the boats that race in the Factory Classes....

Also why is it that the Racers only came up here for one year.....where people that upset over the race? I thought it was a great weekend and brought alot of business to the area. I had lunch the friday before the races with some of the participants, they were nice curtious and wanted to make sure everyone was having a great time......

[Airwaves]

LI Relaxin wrote:

Don't be sure thos boats aren't pulled around on trailers.... they have Custom Haulers and custom built trailers...But nothing I would call specially designed..

Regardless of whether you call a custom hauler specially designed or not, these offshore vessels are not towed behind the family Buick with a destination of Lake Winnipesaukee as APS would have us believe.

LI Relaxin wrote:

Also why is it that the Racers only came up here for one year.....where people that upset over the race? I thought it was a great weekend and brought alot of business to the area. I had lunch the friday before the races with some of the participants, they were nice curtious and wanted to make sure everyone was having a great time......

I don't know why they didn't come back maybe money? It's an expensive sport, maybe they didn't see the fan support they expected? I didn't hear any complaints about that event. It's a question for one of the folks you had lunch with the Friday before the races.

My point in posting about this is to respond to the APS posts, in which he suddenly changed the terminology of the vessel involved in the debate.

APS has shifted the terminology from Go Fast boats, which are recreational in nature, to Ocean Racers, which are not recreational boats and aren't even on Lake Winnipesaukee!

Get the sides to start talking Ocean Racers, even though there are no Ocean Racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, and it changes the timber of the debate here and in Concord now doesn't it?

Karl Rove would be proud!

[lfm]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Most of "those invisible kayaks" are longer than the boat in this photo, and this boat was right where bbarrell's airborne Baja went by in 2005: we have testimony that a 4-ton boat can become airborne at "only" 50-MPH.

Fortunately, this photo was taken two weeks ago. Unfortunately, we weren't in any test zone.


And yes, that's a young girl swimming behind them—doing a "long swim".

Maybe the 45-MPH daytime limit is set too high for our waters.

I have many more photos, but unless there are more questions, I now yield the floor to those WinnFABS supporters who have had a well-deserved rest.

I don't get it. What are you trying to say; that because 2 years ago a boat went through this area at 50mph that the kids in the rowboat are in danger or feel unsafe

[Airwaves]

lfm wrote:

I don't get it. What are you trying to say; that because 2 years ago a boat went through this area at 50mph that the kids in the rowboat are in danger or feel unsafe

I'm thinking that APS is suggesting, no not suggesting but DEMANDING! that no boats with mechanical power be allowed on these waters.

Of course looking at the photo, and given Islander's concern about the contamination of the drinking water supply as horsepower increases, there appears to be a person in the water!

People tend to do things in the water that cause e-coli bacterial contamination of the drinking water supply do they not? That would be why most drinking water supplies ban swimming or any physical contact with the water.

Have you heard any of the Speed limit/OMG the drinking water is at risk crowd suggest no swimming on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Just curious.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Quotes by codeman671:


Holy Moly! Whose side are you on?



The above quote is why the Unlimited-Speeds people don't get it and have zero empathy for the others afloat on the lake:

It's not how you feel about your own safety, it's how unsafe everybody else feels while afloat in the path of a 70-MPH boat.


Most of "those invisible kayaks" are longer than the boat in this photo, and this boat was right where bbarrell's airborne Baja went by in 2005: we have testimony that a 4-ton boat can become airborne at "only" 50-MPH.

Fortunately, this photo was taken two weeks ago. Unfortunately, we weren't in any test zone.


And yes, that's a young girl swimming behind them—doing a "long swim".

Maybe the 45-MPH daytime limit is set too high for our waters.

I have many more photos, but unless there are more questions, I now yield the floor to those WinnFABS supporters who have had a well-deserved rest.

APS, this is probably the most lame arguement I have ever seen out of you. Come on, I've come to expect better and, according to the data collected at the six test sites, I doubt there is even one instance of a boat going 70 on the lake especially 20 feet from the shore as the rowboat is if I apply your previous photo measurement standards.

You have no real case so now you are taking pictures of rowboats and a swimmer and making things up. Give me a break.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by lfm

I don't get it. What are you trying to say; that because 2 years ago a boat went through this area at 50mph that the kids in the rowboat are in danger or feel unsafe

Yup, it sure seems like it.

I said at the start of this thread that this was not a rational discussion and APS once again proves the point. By this logic everyone should be terrified to walk across a street because over the last 2 years thousands of cars have passed over the exact spot going at speeds of 30 MPH or more. If a boat is doing 70 MPH in the Broads, canoeists in Green's Basin better watch out. Oh my Gosh, I just realized the Mt Washington goes through the Broads several times a day, in the exact spot I passed last weekend. If the rowboat in the picture gets caught in the warp it could run right over the swimmer, maybe not fatal but probably very painful.

What's more dangerous, a boat doing 70 MPH that is nowhere near you (perhaps as far as 2 years away ) or 5 boats going 20 MPH 50 feet or less way from you? Since I have rarely seen a boat traveling at 70 MPH on the Lake but run across boats coming too close frequently on the Lake, I have worried more about the people breaking the safe passage/150' rule.

But that was before I knew about APS's Space-Time warp. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Dave R]

Peasant #1: We have found a witch, may we burn her?
Angry Mob: BURN HER! BUUUURN HER!!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Peasant #2: She looks like one!
[mob roars in agreement]
Bedevere: Bring her forward.
"Witch": I'm not a witch, I'm not a witch!
Bedevere: But you are dressed as one.
"Witch": They dressed me up like this.
[Witch removes her fake nose and "witch" hat]
Peasant #1: Well, we did do the nose.
Bedevere: The nose?
Peasant #1: And the hat. But she is a witch!
[mob roars in agreement]
Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this?
Angry Mob: NO! NO!
Peasant #1: ... Yes... a bit. But she has got a wart! [Peasant #2 points at her cheek]
Bedevere: What makes you think that she is a witch?
Mr Newt: What, she turned me into a newt!
Bedevere: A newt?
[pause]
Mr Newt: I got better.
Peasant 2: BURN HER ANYWAY!!!!
[mob roars in agreement]
Bedevere: Good! So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her!
Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Peasant #1: Oh yeah.
Bedevere: Tell me, does wood sink in water?
Peasant #2: No, no, it floats. Floats!
Peasant #1: Throw her into the pond!
[mob roars in agreement]
Bedevere: No, no, no. What also floats in water?
Peasant #1: Bread.
Peasant #2: Apples.
Mr Newt: Very small rocks.
Peasant #1: Cider.
Peasant #2: Gravy.
Mr Newt: Cherries.
Peasant #1: Mud.
Peasant #2: Churches! Churches!
Mr Newt: Lead! Lead!
Arthur: [has been silent in the background] A duck.
[pause]
Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically...?
Peasant #1: ...If she weighs the same as a duck... then she's made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore...?
[pause]
Peasant #2: A WITCH!
[mob roars in agreement]
Peasent #3: Here's a duck.
Bedevere: We shall use my largest scales. [Peasents 2&3 Set the duck and witch on the scale and hold up very large mallets] Remove the supports!
[Having been revealed to weigh the same as a duck, therefore proving her a witch. The crowd goes berserk.]
"Witch": It's a fair cop.
Mr. Newt: BURRRRN HER!

[Cal]

It certainly has turned into a "Witch hunt" alright and the longer it goes on the more rediculous it's getting. People ignoring facts and figures , posting pictures of almost ANTHING and trying to make something out of them that's not there. The more these people keep this up , the worse it makes them look.
I say , let them keep it up till they shoot themselves in the foot and get nothing

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Quotes by codeman671:
Holy Moly! Whose side are you on?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I have much less of a gripe with the bass-boaters, who have a longer history of safety, respect for our waters, and abstinence than the ocean-racers who are trailered in.

I think it is quite clear what side I am on. I feel that a bass boat is much more dangerous at speed than an "ocean racer" traveling 70mph, and more to themselves than others. The type of boat is not the danger, it is the driver. Your team of fiction writers should stop claiming it is the boats doing the harm and focus on the drivers. A 25' Baja can be driven just as safely as a 25' pontoon, and both could also be a deadly weapon if not handled correctly. Education and enforcement of existing laws is the key to success, instead of creating a useless bill that will not stop 28mph accidents at night from happening.

And for the record, a 25' Outlaw weighs nowhere even close to 4 tons. The new Outlaw 26 weighs 4800lbs, the older 25' slightly less.