Speed Limits

[Woodsy]

You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.

There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded.


Woodsy

[Islander]

Woodsy

It does not require radar or any of the other things you mention to tell the difference between 45 mph and 90 mph.

The estimate of a Marine Patrol officer is good in court.

Enforcement is NOT the issue!

[jeffk]

Woodsy,
This is a very nice explanation and I understand and agree with it. I also believe that visual estimates of speed on water are very unreliable (I don't have a research reference for this, I remember reading something about it years ago, no fixed points of reference, etc).
So the followup question is why do we hear quotes from enforcement officers in other states that say that the speed enforcement is working? Are they using the more expensive radar? Are the courts just accepting bad radar readings because they can't get anything better and they just want to support the effort to police those lakes?
I know you probably don't have an answer for this because I'm asking you to explain the thinking of another person, however these two points, affordable radar doesn't work and officals claiming water speed limits are enforceable, are talking past each other and creating confusion (at least in my mind ).

[overlook]

Estamates do not convict.

Plane and simple ,The majority of people who are in favor of a speed limit do not like fast boats. It is just the there first objective to clear up the conjestion on the lake, next wakes then colorfull sails and on and on.

From all the post that I have seen there has not been one reason that could not be refuted.

The speed limit issue is redundant.

[frank m.]

Woodsy,
I'm curious to know why you chose to use a "highway radar" system for your example, and not one of the readily available "marine radar" systems, which are engineered for marine use to overcome all of these drawbacks and which are only marginally more expensive than highway systems? Such are the systems being used so successfully in so many locations and by so many marine law enforcement agencies around the country and in Canada. Why are these being ignored in all these arguments when they have been proven to be so effective?
Also, didn't we have speed limits before radar was invented? Didn't the courts recognize the expert testimony of an experienced officer when he said "I would estimate his speed to be over 70MPH in a 45MPH zone". Other marine police officers are telling me that conviction rates with just such testimony are "the norm".
Frank

[Cal]

So , judging by your diagram , the best spot for the MP to sit would be the middle of Alton Bay on a Tuesday when there's only 3 boats out ( so as not to be confused by multiple targets) and it's in a long relatively narrow area so they would have a pretty straight shot at an oncoming vessel.
But then again they also make radar detectors

[Fat Jack]

I understand that just over 100 citations of the 150' rule last summer were challenged in court and that ALL of them were thrown out. And that not a single one was thrown out for officer mis-estimation of speed, but ALL were thrown out for questions over the officer's estimation of distance. So if we are all relying so heavily on this 150' panacea which does not work, why not go to a law that would be easier for the MP's to enforce? Especially since the courts have shown that they will respect an officer's speed estimation.

[Gilligan]

How do they enforce boating speed limits on those big lakes where it is claimed the limits work? What happens if the MP is following directly behind a target boat, can they get a good radar reading?

GPS can let the MP know how fast their patrol boat is going. If the target is pulling away from the MP then the officer must conclude that the target boat is going faster than MP boat. If said MP is going the speed limit then the target must be exceeding the limit.

Now the problem. How does the slower MP boat catch the go fast boat? They can't. They can try to radio another patrol boat and try to intercept the go fast boat but it rarely works. MP is not equipped to even chase errant jet skiers. Many of us have seen boating violators outdistancing MP boats with blue lights and sirens chasing them. There are too few MP. MP is too slow and the other boats are too fast.

I wonder if there is some speed that everyone would agree is too fast for the lake. Is 100 mph too fast or could that be a speed limit? Will we all be required to carry GPS interfaced transponders (like airplanes) so our boating direction and speed can be followed on a master screen?

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack... What Marine systems are you talking about? Who is the makes it? Model? Etc? Proven where? Where is your data? Post the websites for all to research?

A handheld radar gun has all of the drawbacks listed. Now if you want to discuss a radar that will work for speed enforcement on the water, you need to be able to cite the target vessel's actual course and speed relative to your position, course and speed. To do that you need an expensive radar that has target designation (to isolate the offending vessel and give the range to the offending vessel) as well as plot speed and course. The Sigma-6 radar from Rutter does this, but its expensive and requires a dedicated officer (RIO - Radar Intercept Officer) to operate.

A Court would recognize an expert officers estimation, especially when the vehicle was traveling in a STRAIGHT line relative to the officers position or vehicle. Police cars also have calibrated speedometers that are acceptable in a court of law. If the law enforcement officer does not know my course and bearing or distance relative to his position he cannot accurately estimate speed.... its SIMPLE geometry. Straight Line is the key to the equation.

Gilligan, the RIB's used by the Mp's on Winni can catch just about any boat on the lake.... they are pretty fast, 60+ or so

Woodsy

[frank m.]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

How does the slower MP boat catch the go fast boat? They can't. They can try to radio another patrol boat and try to intercept the go fast boat but it rarely works. MP is not equipped to even chase errant jet skiers. Many of us have seen boating violators outdistancing MP boats with blue lights and sirens chasing them. There are too few MP. MP is too slow and the other boats are too fast.

Good points. But these sound much like the problems that road cops had many years ago, and I don't recall them excusing themselves and giving up. They took action to strengthen laws, to get the vehicles and equipment they needed, and to hire the officers they needed. Enforcement officials probably went to the state capitols and fought for the stuff they needed to do their jobs. Can you imagine the reaction you'd get if the state police said they did not have enough troopers and that their cruisers were not fast enough, so there was no sense having speed limits on our highways?
Could this fear of not being adequately staffed and equipped be the reason MP is fighting this bill? Could they just be giving up on our safety because they don't understand what we expect? Seems that we first need to work with them to help them understand what we want this bill to accomplish. Then we need to help them convice Flynn that more patrolmen and better equipment is needed.
Of course, we do not expect them to be tagging boats going 46 mph or trying to measure speeds to within a tenth of an mph. We expect them only to give enforcement a reasonable effort and to cite the flagrant violators, and we expect the deterent effect of the law to do the rest. AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.
I think a big part of our problem has been that Dave Barrett is just not understanding what we expect from this law.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Fat Jack... What Marine systems are you talking about? Who is the makes it? Model? Etc? Proven where? Where is your data? Post the websites for all to research?

Woodsy

Here is a link to a marine radar gun.

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

There are also LASER speed guns that do not have many of the drawbacks of radar.

Here is a link to the WinnFABS website, they refute most of the points you make with links and examples.

http://www.winnfabs.com/

However the important point here is that most people with boats that can go 90 mph will choose another body of water to put their boat in.

[Bear Lover]

This Citizen article has the speed limit gaining speed and support. Things like this are much more relevant when done "in season".

http://www.citizen.com/april_2005/04...ia_041805e.asp

And the head of the Marine Patrol now thinks a speed limit IS enforceable!

[PROPELLER]

I will apologize in advance for the length of this post. However, I think it is important to understand why the speed limit supporters feel it is necessary.

First, I would like to know if there are any statistics that are specific to Winnipesaukee detailing the number of accidents involving more than 1 boat in the last 1, 2, 5, 10 years etc and if there are how many involved serious injury, property damage or both & how serious the injuries or damage was. If these are available is there any information explaining how fast the boats were traveling at impact etc. I am asking about this because to me this is what should be used to support or not support a speed limit. I am also asking because in my observations while on the lake and in following the news I am only familiar with 1 tragic accident on a summer evening in Meredith that falls into this category & by all accounts the offending boat did not appear to be exceeding any of the proposed speed limits. Other than this 1 accident the only other incidents I hear about with any frequency at all are ones like a canoe capsized or I recall a couple summers ago that some one fell off a pontoon boat in the evening of off Diamond Island.

If these kind of statistics can not be produced then the speed limit supporters are in favor of HB162 for some other reason or reasons. At this point, I can only speculate. Lets take a stab at it. They do not feel safe when out on the lake because they perceive that too many boats are going well in excess of 45 mph. First, what some one thinks a boats speed is & what it really is could be 2 different speeds. Secondly, because the vast majority of boats on Winni are not capable of exceeding 50 mph, many are not capable of exceeding 40-45 mph how could it be true that too many boats are traveling well in excess of 45 mph? Lastly, even with some boats exceeding this proposed 45 mph limit, what evidence is there that this is not safe? I'm not hearing about collisions at high speeds & if they were happening believe me you would hear about it. It would be big news just like the tragedy in Meredith. I'm not hearing about collisions at low speeds either.

Next possible reason, too many boats? although I do not believe Winni is too crowded yet, in my opinion. This is a moot point since being too crowded has nothing to do with speed.

There is another reason. The speed limit supporters have alluded to the fact that high performance boats make too much noise. There is a noise ordinance or illegal db level but apparently they are not happy with this ordinance. I will speculate on this, because they are not happy with the noise ordinance they think that if they can pass a speed limit that will make high performance boat owners so unhappy that they will not frequent Winni, this will solve their noise problem. Again, this is a moot point since this is not speed related because even at 45 mph the noise is more than the speed limit supporters can bear & apparently they are not interested in supporting a different noise law that may solve this problem.

There is one other possible reason that I have stated in previous posts. Some, not all, just don't like high performance boats for no specific reason, just don't like them & would rather see them go somewhere else. Again this is not related to speed but a speed limit appears to be the only way to possibly rid the lake of these kinds of boats.

So where does this leave us? Unless there are the statistics that I referenced earlier in the post, we are left people that support a speed limit because they perceive that they are not safe(without statistics to support them), too many boats, which is not a speed related issue & is a perception or opinion not a proven fact, too much noise which is already regulated but not to their satisfaction & also not related to speed, don't like high performance boats, again not related to speed but maybe the only way to get rid of these boats.

This post is not meant to chastise speed limit supporters. I am just trying to understand where they are coming from. If these reasons I have discussed here are why they are in support of HB162, I understand them but I do not agree that they should be used by legislators as a basis for passing HB162. Statistics showing that speed in excess of 45 mph is causing too many collisions with property damage & injuries is what the legislators should be demanding before they consider passing HB162.

[PROPELLER]

That link has already been posted in another thread & I fail to see Where Barrett was quoted as saying now the speed limit is enforceable.

[restauranteer]

As Propellor said, that's old news.

But it did get me contemplating. Remeber all the hub-bub in the last year about improper influence in the legislature, ehtics violations, untracked financial donations with lack of disclosure....and so on.

Well, given that at least one poster here has claimed to have made a $5000 donation to WinnFlabbs, and no evidence of this group registering with the Secretary of State's Office....could I smell a story brewing or what???

So I have e-mailed that handsome devil of a Citizen reporter and asked him to investigate the investigators, so to speak.

Lets see whats really behind that website....could it be a bunch of nasty out-o-staters masking as concerned New Hampshirites looking to kill our tourist trade? Could it be lobbyists from a radar gun manufacturer looking to make a quick killing?? Could it be a secret conclave of kayak manufacturers, looking to take the Lake back for their customers???

Enquiring cooks need to know!!!

Salute!

[Woodsy]

Frank,

Good points. But these sound much like the problems that road cops had many years ago, and I don't recall them excusing themselves and giving up. They took action to strengthen laws, to get the vehicles and equipment they needed, and to hire the officers they needed. Enforcement officials probably went to the state capitols and fought for the stuff they needed to do their jobs. Can you imagine the reaction you'd get if the state police said they did not have enough troopers and that their cruisers were not fast enough, so there was no sense having speed limits on our highways?

Of course, we do not expect them to be tagging boats going 46 mph or trying to measure speeds to within a tenth of an mph. We expect them only to give enforcement a reasonable effort and to cite the flagrant violators, and we expect the deterent effect of the law to do the rest. AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.

What do you mean problems the road cops had years ago? The speed laws already had plenty of teeth, the radar just enabled them to do thier job easier. Then of course the insurance guys got involved. Radar is great in straight line application, such as highways and roads. The diagram Radar #1 shows how & why it works so well in that application, its really a simple geometry problem. Radar has enabled alot less arguing in court over speed citations. The State Police ask for more manpower and better equipment every year. They do a great job with what they are given to work with. However, the Legislature has asked the State Police to provide a "Demonstrable Need" in order to receive any increase in funding. Why, because NOBODY wants to pay for it! There is a cost associated with a speed limit law, the cost of expensive naval search & tracking radar equipment, the cost of maintaining the equipment, the cost of specialized officer training, the cost of hiring additional officers, the cost and burden to the legal system for appeals, etc. etc. How do you propose to pay for all of this? Maybe enact some sort of fee for using Lake Winnipesaukee? They have one at Lake George!

I already expect or Marine Patrol to enforce our existing rules and regulations and to cite flagrant violators of ANY rule! There is already a reckless operation law on the books as well as an operator negligence law. Both of these laws are arrestable offenses and carry far heavier penalties that a speed limit citation. Just look at the trial last year, and speed was not a factor. As for speed limit violation statistics, I would like to see a breakdown of speeding citations issued for excessive speed in a no wake zone vs citations issued for speeding out in open water. I'll bet the majority of citations issued for speeding are in no wake zones! If anyone has those statistics, please post them! (and from what lake)

here is the link to the Lake George State Park Fee Structure:

http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/boat_reg.htm

Yes, the whole Lake is a State Park!

Your average boater (24' boat, not an overnighter) would have to pay an additional $37.50 for an annual registration just to use his/her boat on lake Winnipesaukee. The day trippers would have to pay $7.50 a day! I am sure that would go over big with everyone!

Bear Islander....

Call Kustom Signals and ask them.... specifically if the handheld radar you mentioned can determine the target vessels bearing and speed relative to the operating officer? I did! It can't! If it cannot do that then it cannot give an accurate reading of the target vessels speed. It is simple geometry! The Falcon Marine Radar is essentially a hand held radar that has been marinized, and by marinized I mean it gives speed readout in knots as well as mph and has been made water resistant. It does not and cannot give the target vessels bearing (course) relative to the officer. It will give you a range, however, that is measured in a straight line from the officer. See my diagram Radar #2. It seems mostly for use in enforcement of no wake zones hence the 1/10th MPH adjustment, where boats are forced to travel slower and within a marked lane of travel. See the similarity to highway use yet?

Laser Radar suffers from the same issues as electron based radar, in that in only works in a straight line, and cannot give the target vessels bearing relative to the MP officer. Laser also suffers a drawback when used against boats in that most boat surfaces are curved plastic, so the light does not reflect back properly.

There are probably less than 10 boats on Winni capable of exceeding 90mph. That doesn't mean that these boats are operated at 90mph all the time. Why should they have to find a new place to recreate just because you don't like them? If people have a hard time judging 150', its a pretty sure bet they are just as bad at judging the speed of another boat relative to their own!

Again I challenge ANYONE to post some empirical data from Lake Winnipesaukee that shows speed was a major contributing factor in an accident! There is absolutely NO DEMONSTRABLE NEED for a speed limit. Absolutely no justification exists for the costs and burdens that a speed limit impose on the tax payers, to the MP and the legal system!

Better enforcement of existing rules & regulations is the answer. How to get better enforcement? Better full time MP staffing. Not more expensive unenforceble rules!

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I think it is important to understand why the speed limit supporters feel it is necessary.

How can you explain how the speed limit supporters feel? Have you polled them? Are you one? Do they all feel the same way and have the same reasons and motivation? How can a post that starts out with you speculating in an extremely general way have much merit?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

First, I would like to know if there are any statistics that are specific to Winnipesaukee detailing the number of accidents involving more than 1 boat in the last 1, 2, 5, 10 years etc and if there are how many involved serious injury, property damage or both & how serious the injuries or damage was. If these are available is there any information explaining how fast the boats were traveling at impact etc. I am asking about this because to me this is what should be used to support or not support a speed limit.

This has been answered time and time again. Why would there be a single record that cites the cause of an incident as excessive speed, when there is no such thing as "excessive speed" in this lake? ...When marine patrol currently has no means, and makes no attempt to measure speed? Should we be expecting to find a police report that says "this accident was caused because the boat was travelling 78MPH?" How would they know that when they are makign no attempt to measure or note the speed? So instead, they categorize accidents according to the nearest infraction that currently pplies; operator error, reckless operation, etc.
Of course there are no statistics. There were no statistics kept for many years to correlate tobacco smoking to cancer either. It was not until a means to prove the correlation was adopted that the statistics could be compiled and the correlation could be proven. Does this mean that tobacco did not cause cancer before statistics were compiled?
Can we please stop having to answer the "no statistics" argument now?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

by all accounts the offending boat did not appear to be exceeding any of the proposed speed limits.

Although this is irrelevant, it is also untrue. This boat was going 27MPH, which is indeed OVER the proposed nightime speed limit of 25. Although we will never be able to prove the real cause of this accident unless someone finds a vial of the driver's blood from that night.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I can only speculate. Lets take a stab at it.

Let's not speculate, let's believe what the proponents have been saying. I do not feel that any speed is safe on this lake. I feel that some limit is reasonable and should be in place. I feel that 45MPH is a reasonable daytime limit and 25 is a reasonable nighttime limit. Now you should say how YOU feel, and let other people say how THEY feel, and stop speaking for them.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

being too crowded has nothing to do with speed.

You surely did not mean that. I'll assume that you misspoke and will correct it.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I will speculate on this, because they are not happy with the noise ordinance they think that if they can pass a speed limit that will make high performance boat owners so unhappy that they will not frequent Winni, this will solve their noise problem.

Again, you speculate wrongly, at least for me. And I have heard NO supporters say that they think the noisy boats will leave. I feel that any boat capable of doinf so makes less noise at 45MPH than it does at 90MPH. I'm sure you will have to admit this is true. he motor is not reving as high,and that results in less noise. Although I have no statistics, I assume you will accept this obvious point of reason. So by slowing down, boats will become quieter. This is a fortunate side effect we will enjoy from the speed limit, but it is only a side effect. Every supporter I have have talked to mainly wants to see boats limited to a REASONABLE SPEED for this lake (but I don't want to speak for them).

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

There is one other possible reason that I have stated in previous posts. Some, not all, just don't like high performance boats for no specific reason, just don't like them & would rather see them go somewhere else. Again this is not related to speed but a speed limit appears to be the only way to possibly rid the lake of these kinds of boats.

This is the most far-reaching of your stabs. I in fact love performance boats. I also love race cars and like to go to races at Louden, but would not like to see those cars racing down my street at those speeds when my grandkids are riding their bikes. I love to watch performance boats scream by when I'm in Miami Beach. I used to take my kids to watch the offshore event on the lake every year. It's very exciting and the boats are beautiful. But that was a sanctioned and highly supervized event, with family boaters kept out of the paths of the racing boats. I would feel differently if they allowed runabouts to travel in and out of the racing paths as they wished. Surely, you do not feel that would be safe, right? Yet today, that same situation could happen and it would be legal. Twenty offshore boats COULD trailer up here this weekend and have a drag race around the lake at 90MPH, with family boaters and sailboats meandering through their paths and dodging them, and it would all be legal. But would it be safe?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

This post is not meant to chastise speed limit supporters. I am just trying to understand where they are coming from. If these reasons I have discussed here are why they are in support of HB162, I understand them but I do not agree that they should be used by legislators as a basis for passing HB162. Statistics showing that speed in excess of 45 mph is causing too many collisions with property damage & injuries is what the legislators should be demanding before they consider passing HB162.

Or perhaps they should be obeying the mandate of their constituency. That is what this is really about. There is no "right" to drive fast in a boat in this state, so this should and will come down to the number of NH citizens who are in favor of a speed limit versus the number of NH citizens who oppose it. The way our government is set up, legislators know that they will subject themselves to being voted out if they do not adhere to the wishes of those whose votes they will need, and if they hope to be re-elected, they will vote according to the majority of their constituents. I'm anxious to see which way that will go. That is why don't want to waste my time listening to the opinions of GFBL boaters from New Jersey and Oregon. Their opinions simply don't count here. The opinions of people from Mass who own NH real estate and pay NH real estate taxes are always going to be given a certain amount of heed, but it is really going to come down to how NH voters feel.

[Islander]

"On Monday he assured that his agency will do everything in its power to uphold the law if it is approved. "If they pass it then we’ll do it ... I’m just not going to guarantee how successful it will be," said Barrett."

[Islander]

It is easy to see by the length of the posts which side of this argument is losing momentum.

[JDeere]

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.



If the speed limit was 45 MPH I assume MP would give some leeway of 10 or 15 MPH. That means no stops until 60 MPH or so. How many boats out there ca go faster than that? I suspect 30% or so................judging by what I see at the docks.



Of the 30% or of those folks how many are going 60 MPH?



Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.



As far as enforcement hasn’t anyone been stopped by MP for going to fast in a no-wake zone? Let MP worry about enforcement. I am sure they will do just fine.



I do not know if the speed limit will pass BUT I do know that this is start of the process and if it is voted down this bill will keep coming up until it is passed. Makes the lake (common sense) safer for boaters, fisherman, kayakers etc.



Why oppose it?

[ITD]

Woodsy,

You're wasting your time asking for data, I've asked many times and get no response or a picture of a wrecked boat. I don't think there is any data or if there is, it shows there is not a problem. The 45 mph number is one pretty much pulled out of the air. What bothers me most is that the problems listed by the proponents of speed limits are not caused by excessive speed. Large wakes, noise, dangerous behavior won't be solved by a speed limit, anyone who thinks it will be is a dreamer. The other thing that bothers me are the claims that "speed estimation" is allowed as evidence in court. Humans are not equipped to estimate speed without measuring instruments (stop watch, measured distances, laser, radar). Estimating speed of one boat on the lake by eye with any reasonable accuracy is impossible.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.

Thanks for a great post, JDeere! The opposition comes from the small percentage that will have to slow down to a reasonable speed.

Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.

That's been my exact point, but the people who want to travel at 75mph and faster keep insisting that speed has nothing to do with safety. The truth is that the faster you are going, the more distance you cover. If you don't see a small boat (like a kayak) until you are close to it, you'll be all that much closer in the time that it takes you to avoid hitting it (or not). How is that not directly related to high speeds?

[overlook]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.



If the speed limit was 45 MPH I assume MP would give some leeway of 10 or 15 MPH. That means no stops until 60 MPH or so. How many boats out there ca go faster than that? I suspect 30% or so................judging by what I see at the docks.



Of the 30% or of those folks how many are going 60 MPH?



Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.



As far as enforcement hasn’t anyone been stopped by MP for going to fast in a no-wake zone? Let MP worry about enforcement. I am sure they will do just fine.



I do not know if the speed limit will pass BUT I do know that this is start of the process and if it is voted down this bill will keep coming up until it is passed. Makes the lake (common sense) safer for boaters, fisherman, kayakers etc.



Why oppose it?

WHY YOU ASK!!
People like me who have boated in NH for 49 years that worked very hard to be able to afford a considerable investment on the ability to go over 100mph.
I do it safely, at the proper time and I do not over controle the boat. Most of the time I cruise at 50 to 70 depending on the weather, thats where I get my best mpg.To force somone like me to boat some where else is not living free.

PS: I have gone over 130mph and nobody noticed. I plan on buying a boat that goes over 145mph. I call it my endorphins.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Why oppose it?

Because, In my opinion, the main purpose of the speed limit law is to discourage a certain type of boat from using the lake. In my opinion, the backers of the law are not that interested in safety, but rather in driving certain boats off the lake. A real concern for safety would address the most dangerous issues first. Things like summer weekend traffic in front of the Weirs Channel, between Eagle and Governors Islands, and near Glendale are much more dangerous than a 30' Baja zipping down the Broads at 60 MPH on a Tuesday, in September. The proposed law would stop the Baja but have no effect on the other issues.

This summer take a look around, watch the dangerous activity. You'll see for every boat exceeding 45 MPH, you will see 100 boats breaking the 150' rule, and 50 boats operating otherwise unsafely.

Just for background, I live in NH but not at the lake. The only motorboat I've ever owned, is a bowrider and will barely do 40 MPH. I've been on the lake with my family for 18 years and I've even kayaked on the lake.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't argue for certain laws, maybe banning certain boats is a good idea. Maybe lowering the noise limits is a good idea. But there should be truth in what the reason behind a law is.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you don't see a small boat (like a kayak) until you are close to it, you'll be all that much closer in the time that it takes you to avoid hitting it (or not). How is that not directly related to high speeds?

Then perhaps a simple safety orange flag added to low visibility craft would be the answer. Seems like a real quick , easy fix to me. I know if I were in a little boat in big water it would make me feel better.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by overlook

WHY YOU ASK!!
People like me who have boated in NH for 49 years that worked very hard to be able to afford a considerable investment on the ability to go over 100mph.
I do it safely, at the proper time and I do not over controle the boat. Most of the time I cruise at 50 to 70 depending on the weather, thats where I get my best mpg.To force somone like me to boat some where else is not living free.

PS: I have gone over 130mph and nobody noticed. I plan on buying a boat that goes over 145mph. I call it my endorphins.

Being afraid to take the family out in the boat on weekends and keeping the swimmers closer to shore than the dock is not "living free" either.

And if my 13' alumacraft gets in your path when you are going 145 mph I will not be living free either.

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?

[jarhead]

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?[/QUOTE]



WHO HAS DIED IN AN ACCIDENT WHERE SPEED WAS THE REASON?????????????? I WOULD LIKE SOME FACTS!

[Islander]

Jarhead

How can anybody be sighted for speed when there is no speed limit?

And the accident we all know about involved a speed greater than the proposed speed limit.

More importantly the accident involved a boat that should not be on Winnipesaukee in the first place.

[codeman671]

I agree with Propellor as well. Barrett clearly stated that he doubts its enforceability and effectiveness. Of course he will try to enforce it, thats hs job and he certainly would not allow to be quoted as saying that he would not enforce a law put into action. A statement like that would have him looking for another career. It does not say that he thinks it is enforceable, that statement previously posted is clearly a false interpretation.

[Skip]

Caution: If you think some of my other posts are boring or too long winded, better block me from your buddy list immediately!!!

Interesting post Woody, good handle on the basics.

I would like to point out, in the interest of accuracy, that the K-band radar units we are discussing here determine target speed via doppler, not time delay measurements. Also, the target, in relation to the radar unit, is not showing a constant bearing unless it is driving directly towards (yikes, collision course!) or directly away from the unit. Other than those two situations, it is generating a bearing rate depending on its aspect to the radar unit.

For those not familiar with doppler, think of standing next to a railroad crossing as a train sounding its whistle approaches you. As the train approaches, the whistle has a higher pitch. The instant it passes you by, the pitch is the original frequency. As it drives away from you, the pitch shifts to a lower frequency. That's doppler, in a nutshell.

The same principle applies to the handheld radar units under discussion. A carefully calibrated narrowband radio frequency is transmitted from the antenna arperture in a narrow conelike beam. At maximum range, that beam, only a few millimeters in diameter at the gun, has grown in size to several hundred feet. Any target within that cone generating relative motion in relation to the radar gun will return some level of signal. The greater the relative motion, the greater the speed displayed on the handheld unit. Unless the relative motion is dead on or dead away from the transmitter, any angle will show a speed lesser than that actually being conducted by the target. The greater the angle, the less the relative motion, hence less doppler shift, hence a displayed speed less than actual speed. The stationary radar does not care if it is down or up doppler, it just measures the difference of received frequency from transmitted frequency, and then generates a correlating speed number.

The other problem is the unit, utilizing what is known as the "capture effect", will display (in a multiple target situation) the unit producing the strongest doppler return signal. This is not the fastest target, or the closest target, or the biggest target. It is the target that due to its surface characteristics is returning the largest amount of signal at a given moment. In a multiple target situation, this can shift from target to target almost instantaneously. That is why these units will blank the dispaly when receiving multiple return signals, to minimize operator error.

Problems encountered by terrestrial radars are greatly amplified in waterborne situations due to platform instability, enhanced ranges and ghosting by signal reflection off the water, signal ducting caused by low level temperature inversions over the water, etc.

However, a trained and experienced operator should be able to compensate for these issues and operate a radar unit properly, albeit under limited and carefully controlled conditions.

Also, you are correct that there is no significant electronics difference between the terrestrial and marinized units. The only electronic difference is the ability to display speed in tenths of the measured unit (either knots or MPH), the ability to choose between knots or MPH display, the color white and a heavier rubber grip. Oh yes, I almost forgot the most important difference. The Marine version comes in a case that floats, vice the standard aluminum case that does not!

Finally, it will be a long time if ever that you see a marine "fire control" type radar unit used for speed analysis on an inland body of water. First, it would take three people to operate the platform correctly (radar operator, spotter and boat operator). And unless you were lucky enough to score someone with a military background, the cost to procure and make someone proficient in these devices would be cost prohibitive for an agency that depends heavily on seasonal help.

By the way, (as some of you have already guessed) I have been operating portable speed measuring devices since 1975. I also have six years active duty submarine service as the Sonar LPO on 640 class ballistic missile submarines with a specialty in narrowband doppler analysis, and ten years reserve duty with the Naval Inshore Undersea Warfare units as a watch officer, where I spent countless hours utilizing various Raytheon surface search radar units.

Yes, I know I am just an amateur at this stuff, but I always like to throw in my $.02 when the discussions get technical.

As always, feel free to e-mail me if you would like any amplifying information.

Skip

[codeman671]

Where are all the statistics on accidents reported on the lake? I would love to see one of the people pushing for a speed limit and posting here that all GFBL's are evil to get some real facts for everyone to see regarding the number of accidents in the last 5 years with their cause. How many people have died or how many accidents on the lake could be related to speed? How many to alcohol? How many to plain stupidity? I think that the results would be overwhelmingly towards alcohol or stupidity, not speed. If someone is screaming into Weirs on a congested weekend and acting reckless I can certainly see a need to rule for excessive speed but feel that this would be better handled as a reckless operation citation, not speeding. It has a much stiffer penalty and would call for witnesses instead of an opinion of a seasonal MP officer to make the sole call which could easily be refuted.

How may people are going to take speeding tickets to court? Probaby most. And to be enforced in court the officer needs to be present, this would take the patrolling officers off the lake frequently, rake up huge expenses and fill the local courts with a lot of minor infractions.

"How many more need to die"? Gimme a break. How many have died? Far less than people are claiming or eluding to. I certainly do not discount the value of life but that is a bit dramatic...

[Islander]

These long winded posts on how radar doesn't work are like those people that argue you don't need to pay taxes to the IRS because money isn't really money or something. I don't understand either argument but I know I DO need to pay the IRS.

And I also know that even if I win in court I have already lost by having to go there. It's usually easier and cheaper to pay the fine.

But even if you are right, and radar will not work on Winni, what difference does that make? NONE!

Very few speeding tickets will be written because the really fast boats will all be on the Atlantic, where they should be. Go to Lake George and count the GFBL boats you find there.

[jeffk]

Thanks Skip,
Between Woodsy's initial discussion and your expertise it seems clear to me that the speed enforcement technology is not very accurate on water.

The supporters of the speed limit say that the fast boats prevent their enjoyable use of the lake with smaller and slower boats. I recognize that taking a smaller boat into the broads on a busy weekend would entail a possible increase in risk. However, wherever there is a significant mismatch in the size and power of vehicles it is not a good idea to mix them too closely. This is why we have bicycle lanes and sidewalks and why most slower means of transportation are prohibited on high speed roads. Why is it demanded that every sq. foot of Winni must be allocated and protected for smaller boats? There are many areas that are not practical for larger and faster boats that can be used comfortably and exclusively by smaller craft. The 150' rule creates a buffer zone around every piece of land that is available for slower speed craft. There are also many other lakes, some of which completely prohibit power boats. I don’t want this to be misstated to say that I think smaller boats should be restricted. The choice to travel wherever they wish is theirs and they should be given every respect and legal protection (such as yielding to them) however I think that putting restrictions on other’s use of the lake so that the smaller, slower crowd can feel comfortable is going too far.

I also find it interesting that it seems to be the opinion of the speed limit supporters that if an accident happens at a fast speed then speed must be the cause of the accident. If a boat rams into a dock at 10 MPH or at 70 MPH the cause of the accident is not speed, it is operator error and illegal operation under many laws already in existence. You might even say the speed was excessive for the situation (even at 10 MPH). The purpose of a speed limit is to recognize that the conditions of operation are such that a limited speed is required. This is usually indicated by rising accident counts or excessive congestion. This may be true in some parts of Winnipesaukee where there is high traffic or limited maneuverability, especially on summer weekends. However, the statistics seem to indicate the vast majority of problems are reckless operation, drunk boating, and violation of the 150' rule. I wonder if there is an accident and the MP feels the speed was excessive if it is indicated on the accident report? You don't need a speed limit to make this observation. This would be a reasonable thing to track but until I see statistics that support excessive speed being a significant primary contributor to accidents I don't support a general speed limit on the lake.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I see that Skip has chimed in on the point below as well. I gotta stop this work stuff and spend more time online I guess ...

To address the initial point of the thread:

OK first let's clear up a minor technical point. Like "Woodsy" said above police speed radar is a straight line tool. Targets not moving directly to or away from the radar will have their measured speed reduced as has been discussed previously (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1217). While laser radar (aka lidar) works by measuring timing from transmitted pulse to received pulse (multiple times over a small interval) to get an average speed over the measurement interval, the radar guns in question use the Doppler principle. So as not to bore everyone I won't bother explaining it here, you can google it to find out if you're curious. The difference is w/o distinction though as radar be it military, civilian or speed control, has some problems over water that don't exist in as much magnitude as they do on land. Some of these (ie - discrimination) were discussed in the thread above. Let me turn to the topic of radar reflectivity (aka radar cross section, RCS) of fiberglass boats. As many have said (and it's true) fiberglass isn't a good reflector of RF energy. Look at the covering over the marine and weather radar antennas, they're plastic and fiberglass because they don't reflect back too much energy. That said it's not like a boat will be invisible, it's just that the range at which the gun will lock on and display a speed will be reduced (in many cases) when compared to ranges for autos. I've tried to find some unclassified literature on boat RCS that I can share with y'all and the following is the best I can come up with at present.

http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/...4%20%20RCS.pdf

In this they used civilian marine radar (CMR) to measure the RCSs of various targets, among them "small" (when compared to ships) boats. Of particular interest is the measured RCS of a 25' fishing boat (another reference lists a 28' commercial fishing boat at same RCSs), which was something between 1 and 10 square meters (m^2). A dingy was 0.01 to .1 m^2. I'd estimate a fiberglass boat might be around 0.5 to 5 m^2 (? maybe smaller ?). Consider that average numbers for a car are something like 100 - 120 m^2 and you can begin to appreciate the issue. Neglecting any other interfering effects and the max range is reduced to something between a quarter to a half of what it is for cars. It might even be worse if the measured boat RCSs above were for a beam aspects (looking at side of boat) rather than at it's bow from head on. In the later case the boat's RCS is certainly smaller again. Add in time varying reflections off waves and pointing error/beam loss of the gun and you've reduced the effective range even more. The end point is that while speed guns may be useful in some scenarios the boater has even more of a chance than a car does. What I'd predict would happen is easy to extrapolate from what's already happened in the car world. People will have radar detectors and perhaps "bear detectors" (detectors of police radio emissions) and the VHF (akin to the CB of the '70s). The MP will have certain locations where a trap might work and these will become known. In other open water locations any radar gun will be detected (heck the MP boat will probably be seen) before it can register the boat. You'll get people to slow down where and when the radar is in use and not in other places. This may have the desired effect of slowing people down in those places but I don't see it chasing performance boats off the lake. It'll become a big game as it was back in the bad ole days of the NMSL/55.

Lidar doesn't suffer some of the same problems that RF radar does but it has some of it's own. The big one is that the beamwidth is very small (about 10' wide @ 1500') and so it has to be held very steady to stay on target, something that will be very hard to do in a rocking boat (think about using a telescope in a boat). This is why you don't see moving lidar units like you see moving radar units. Use off a boat might catch some people (more when the water is calm, less normally) but now lidar detectors, which are pretty much useless in cars, have a chance to operate. If the beam isn't held steady the detector will go off and give some advance warning before the aim is re-centered. Whether this will be enough I don't know for sure. I also suspect there's some logic in the lidar guns that rejects readings that are too disparate from pulse to pulse and so even a somewhat steady (less unsteady) beam may be painting the bow then windsheild then ?? resulting in a longer time to "lock" than would be normal in auto usage. The guys who are long range rifle shooters and can breathe, time their squeeze and maintain sight picture during triggering may do OK with marine lidar. Others will be less effective. Oh yeah, it's going to be really, really hard to aim existing lidar guns to enforce the 25 mph night time limit. Are we going to have lidar for day and radar for night ?

To address speed limits in general :

When I have some more time to type I'll add some more things to think about. Suffice it to say that putting aside whether a SL is needed or not, effective or not, and whether the resources would be better used otherwise; how would one go about figuring out what it should be ? What is reasonable and why is that number reasonable ? What are the factors involved ? There was a time before politics got involved that SLs were set by analysis. Has anyone (other than me) done any analysis ? Hint: the answer is somewhere between NWS and 1000 MPH

[jarhead]

Sorry Islander should have used better word than cited , how about reason ? My bad i will edit.

[PROPELLER]

J Deere says he has read all the posts, so he should know why the SL is being opposed if he read them all, so what do you not understand J Deere?

J Deere also said that there will probably be 10-15 mph leeway & that maybe true. So why isn't the proposed SL 60 mph? I'll tell you why, the supporters pushing the hardest want high performance boats off the lake period. They don't like them. 60 mph would not keep high performance boats from coming to Winni & they would still have to deal with what they think is unacceptable noise. So why not lobby to lower the db level?

If the speed limit supporters & WinnFABS were truly interested in making Winni a safer lake, long before now WinnFABS would have been in existence(instead of after a speed limit was proposed)& would have been lobbying & supporting better education, strengthening the certification program, demanding more & better trained marine patrol officers, demanding increased enforcement of existing laws etc. Where were these SL proponents before HB 162?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

60 mph would not keep high performance boats from coming to Winni...

It may not "keep" them from coming to the lake, but it will certainly cut down on the number of them. In fact the more speed crazy the operator, the more likely they will go elsewere.

[PROPELLER]

I disagree, because I believe the vast majority of high performance boats that use the lake are traveling between 50-60 mph. Lets hear from high performance operators that monitor this forum.

If your out there, is it fair to say that the majority of high performance boats are cruising in the 50-60 mph range?

As far as speed crazy, I don't believe you are going to see any difference because I think this type of operator rarely comes to Winni. As I have said in previous posts, I spend considerable time on the lake & I have never observed a high performance boat endanger another boat or person because of unreasonable speed or negligent operation.

Does not mean its never happened but if it was happening with any frequency at all I am sure I would have seen at least 1 incident if not a handful, I have not.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Islander

It may not "keep" them from coming to the lake, but it will certainly cut down on the number of them. In fact the more speed crazy the operator, the more likely they will go elsewere.

I doubt it will have much effect. There are examples of reckless boating all over the lake, the vast majority of which is never policed by the MP. If enforcement had the effect that you expect we would see a reduction in the amount of reckless behavior instead of the perceived increase, by all types of boats, that everyone seems to be reporting. The reckless boaters should be "getting the message" that their type of boater isn't welcome on Winni.

Further, I would expect the MP to focus their enforcement on the worst problems. If I was an officer and saw one boat crusing the broads faster than a speed limit and at the same time saw a boat cut within 25 ft of another boat at 20 MPH I would go after the slower boat causing the more urgent danger. Yes, some speeding tickets would be written, fines would be paid, and people would generally continue to boat as they choose.

[Cal]

Here you are Propeller. This slightly above my normal cruise of 3000 rpm which nets me 50 mph. That is where I get the optimal mileage. Above or below that the mileage drops. Above that , you must keep in mind replacement parts are expensive and I know my pockets aren't bottomless
I do believe the issue is more of getting rid of a certain type of boat , namely the go fasts. Next it will be the cruisers because of their wakes , then the jetskis(at least the 2cycle ones). Next it could be you , so be careful what you wish for...you might just get it .
As far as me not coming to Winni...not till they ban powerboats. But then again I'm also an accomplished sailor (but don't let that be known on the "Marine Mafia" site).

[HotDog]

i love going up to the lake and sitting on the boat letting the waves slap against the hull. But i also love sitting down on the boat as i watch the boats fly by. a speed limit on a lake this size is just stupid. People that own lanch ramps think of how much money they would lose over the summer. nobody would come up to a lake of this great size to drive around at 45mph. Putting a speed limit on this lake would make so many people not want to come up to this wonderful place. The boats are loud, sure they are a little loud but you can't hear them inside your house. when you are sitting on your boat don't you look up when you hear the exciting noice. vvvrrrrm.. i don't know what i would ever do if they put a speed limit on this lake!!!!

[restauranteer]

Wow,

Around & around & around we row,
Back to the speed limit,
We just can't let go!

Folks, its time to move on. Think of all the other things we have coming up to be jointly miserable about:

Bass boats
Bass tournaments!
Bass lures on our docks
Bass fishermen fishing Bass Beds

Jet Skis
Jet Ski rental agents
Jet Ski operators
Jets Skis too close to your docks
Jet Skis on Bass Beds

Rafters
Rafters "waste products"
Rafters near our dock/in our cove
Rafters on Bass Beds

Marine Patrol
Marine Patrol not obeying the rules
Marine Patrol operating near Bass Beds

Partying (see rafting above)
Partiers
Partiers rafting
Partiers rafting on Bass Beds

Boaters from Massachussetts
Boaters from Massachussetts not obeying rules
Boaters from Massachussetts rafting/partying
Boaters from Massachussetts doing all this on Bass Beds!

The Lake level Dam operators
The Lake level Dam operators not following our rules
The Lake level Dam operators flooding Bass Beds

And everything/anything in regards to Motorcycle Weekend!

Yeah, I know. I've only scratched the surface.....but at least this partial list of ingredients is a start!

Salute!

[jarhead]

L M A O

[PROPELLER]

I know some are tired of the discussion about HB162 but I think this is important so I want to look at this from a different angle.

I don't know about everyone else but I do not want my legislators voting for or against bills based on peoples opinion, emotion, what they hear through the grapevine or what they read in the newspaper. I vote for my legislators to pass laws based on documented evidence to prove there is an issue that needs to be adressed. Isn't that what we want our legislators to do no matter what the issue?

Collisions are not occurring on Winnipesaukee above or below the proposed speed limits of HB162(except 1 in Meredith). Maybe some boats are bumping others tied up at the public docks but thats irrelevant with respect to HB162 for obvious reasons.

If the legislators who represent me in Concord are making decisions based on peoples opinion, what their friends told them, what they read in the newspaper then I will not be voting for them in the next election.

[Islander]

Propeller

There is more than enough documented evidence to support a speed limit. Common sense and good judgment also argue for a limit.

People that have a predisposition against any limit are discounting or explaining away the evidence.

The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

[PROPELLER]

Besides the collision in Meredith, provide the statistics of all these other alleged collisions.

Speed was #4, not #1, #2 or #3. The top 3 were inattention, careless/reckless operation & operator inexperience which just goes to show that education, education, education should be the top priority. The accidents reported due to speed could have been at much lower speeds than the proposed speed limit in areas where it may not have been reasonable to travel say 10, 15 or 20 mph like the Weirs Channel or between Eagle & Govenors & that could be why they were coded as speed related. It does not mean any of those accidents were due to speeds over 45 mph. They could have been collisions around docks or in no wake areas. Thats where your more likely to have collisions not out in the open water.

446 collisions due to speed(which may have not been at speeds even approaching the proposed speed limit, many could have been around docks or congested areas where you need to go slow) across the whole country is barely a blip on the radar screen when you consider how many registered boats there are in the US. California & Michigan alone have 2 million or more registered boats. In 2003 there were nearly 13 million registered boats across the US. How many of those collisions due to speed occurred in NH & how many on Winnipesaukee?

I did read the Coast Guard report & found it very interesting. Accidents between 93 & 03 have gone down even though the number of registered boats has increased & injuries & fatalities have stayed relatively constant.

So you see, I do see, its just that I can read between the lines & Don't accept everything at face value. Can you?

[jarhead]

according to the coast gaurd 2003 report
acidents by state florida 752
michigan 218
new york 224
texas 198
a bunch in between
new hampshire 49
speed of vesels involved in accidents
under 10 mph 1173
10 to 20 mph 1147
20 to 40 mph 1082
over 40 mph 180 yes 180
deaths by length of vessel
under 16' 88
16' to 26' 101
26' or over 14 yes 14

Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit. I did mention i love statistics right!

[Islander]

Propeller

Why are we ignoring the Meredith accident other than it is very very bad for your argument?

Jarhead

Obviously there are less fatalities in boats over 26'. These boats are a very small percentage of all boats.

The Coast Guard stats are based on the boat you are IN. So if a GFBL runs over 2 people in a 12' skiff, it is recorded as 2 deaths in a vessels under 16'.

Canoes have a very high fatality rate. However only the occupants of the canoe are at risk. I don't think my family or I are in any danger from irresponsible or drunken canoe operators.

[Grant]

Funny, I come across this thread after arriving home and finding the WinnFABS mailer in my mailbox. Just read it and visited the Web site. Compelling stuff.

Here's a simple observation on the matter (guaranteed to raise ire, provoke flames, and induce name-calling):

A speed limit is not a bad thing. Heck, I think if I opened up the throttle on our boat, it might hit 45 MPH. And it's a pretty thrilling ride at that speed. And, when you think about it, 25 MPH at night is probably as fast anyone really needs to go.

(Now here's the part that'll tee off some folks)... Now, if HB 162 passes, perhaps those who own the giant, meant-for-ocean boats that typically are the fastest on the Lake will take their "business" elsewhere. The result: A bit less congestion, a lot less noise, fewer eyesores, fewer speed-related incidents, less pollution... Sounds like a no-brainer, quality-of-life upgrade to me!

Okay, flame away.

[Bear Lover]

In the Meredith accident a 32' Formula ran over a 21' bow rider. So the Coast Guard calls that 1 fatality in a vessel 16' to 26'.

Its not the people in the big boats that are in danger, its the people that get in their way. Then the CG records it as a death in a small boat.

Then somebody tries to use it as a justification for unlimited speed. Unreal!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jarhead

according to the coast guard 2003 report
.... Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit.

Your figures are pretty meaningless. You need to have the speed statistics for only the accidents that involved a collision, rather than for every type of boating accident.

35% of boating accidents in 2003 involved the following:

Capsizing 514
Falls Within Boat 233
Falls Overboard 509
Sinking 128
Departed Vessel (swimming) 34
Departed Vessel (other) 11
Flooding/Swamping 274
Fire/Explosion (fuel) 142
Fire/Explosion (other than fuel) 68
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 20
Falls on PWC 15

Most of these probably happened in small, slow moving boats.

[SIKSUKR]

This reteric about not feeling safe on Winni because of the speeds of the big boats versus other smallboats is almost laughable with a few exceptions.My boat is only 10 feet long has no sidewalls (yes, I operate the often hated PWC)yet I am perfectly comfortable sitting in the broads watching all the marine activity go by.Where I am nervous is an area like between Eagle Island and the Weirs on a busy summer weekend.That place is downright scary.But that has NOTHING to do with high speeds.I don't think I have seen a boat going more than 45 MPH in that area when it's busy.It certainly wouldn't make me feel any safer there if we had a speed limit.Quite the contrary to some posts here,I find the Broads about the safest place to be on a busy weekend.I spend lots of time floating around with my motor off,taking it all in.I think the most reasonable solution to this debate is to have speed limits in areas and/or days where and when there is congestion.I see no problem with a speed limit in the area I just refered to.There is no reason to go 60 MPH there.At the same time there is no reason to limit speed to 45 MPH in the open water of the Broads.Even though I lean toward the no speed limit side,there are legitimate concerns voiced here for reduced speed areas.Arguments have been made here for a speed limit refering to speed limits on our highways.Well,we have higher speeds on highways than we do on sideroads or busy/congested areas don't we?Why not focus on where the problem really is and not paint such a broad brush.This goes for both sides of this issue.OK let me have it! SS

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Your figures are pretty meaningless. You need to have the speed statistics for only the accidents that involved a collision, rather than for every type of boating accident....
...Most of these probably happened in small, slow moving boats....

You are absolutely right....

The most dangerous craft to be in, statistically speaking, is a small, slow moving boat!

Using your logic and facts presented, we need to pass a minimum speed and minimum length boating law. No boats allowed on Winnipesaukee under 20 feet and all boats must be operated at a speed greater than 25 MPH.

Thank you so much for helping us discover what we really need here!

Bon apetit!

[lake4life]

Such emotional involvement.. I can see why. Personally, I don't want to see a fixed speed limit. I'm nervous enough watching my heavy foot on the highway. On the lake, I have plenty of other things to look at (scenery, other boaters, etc.) to be checking over my shoulder for our local LEOs. I would be in favor of increasing the minimum distance before supporting a speed limit. If Joe Schmo wants to take his Fountain or I want to take my Sea Doo 60mph through the Broads, far away from shore or other boaters, I don't think that's the law's business.

As for the viability, I don't have the facts or numbers, but I would rather that the Marine Patrol hire more officers than incur the expense of all of the equipment + training + calibration + court costs. I would guess that the total expenses would be able to cover quite a few salaries for seasonal officers. If anyone wants to support or challenge that with numbers, please do so.

The issue of enforcement with regards to catching the violator also came up. My two cents on this is that it will be difficult considering that boats, unlike cars, don't have rearview mirrors with which to see the flashing patrol boat. If I'm railing down the Broads on my jetski, there's little chance I'll see a patrol boat behind me and little chance he'll catch up. Then there are people who would be able to run and willingly do so. There are plenty of PWCs on the lake that can top out around 70mph... just trying to take a realistic standpoint. Ask any state trooper about pulling over people on sportbikes.

Anyhow, watch out for me in my canoe and I'll watch out for you on my PWC

[Mink Islander]

I have long believed that the lake needs more NWZ's to address the combination of reckless boating (all vessel classes) and congestion in key choke points in the lake in the hot summer months. Between Eagle and Governor's is a nightmare on a busy weekend. Likewise between Cattle Landing and Bear Island. I get scared in my Montauk there on a busy Saturday. Expand the NWZ in Wolfboro bay and Center Harbor as was done in Meredith. The favorable impact in Meredith proves that helps. I'm sure there are plenty of other places. You don't need a radar gun to enforce a no wake zone and you don't impact one boating group more than another either. Doesn't fully address the "speed" topic, but gets at probably the greatest single true "safety issue". I know, I know, existing laws regarding the 150 ft rule just need to be enforced better. Sorry, I don't buy it. NWZs work better. My two cents.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Extending (and widening) the NWZ at the end of the Channel is probably long overdue.

[lake4life]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

NWZs work better.

Agreed. Please let common sense prevail. We already have to deal with reckless/ignorant boaters, we don't need to add overzealous lawmakers to the trouble-list.

[jarhead]

You folks love to point to these rediculous statistics ,but when it get's turned on you watch out .You twist them your way and i'll twist them mine.

[Great Idea]

If you think that speed is not a factor regarding fatal accidents and the potential for them occurring then think again..... check out the statistics regarding our highways and speed is a major factor in deaths. Come on people..... please. The funny thing about all this is that the off shore boating community laughs at these big go fasts on Winni. One friend who owns a very large go fast and races in Florida compared it to using an INDY car on a dirt track. Come on! If you like big go fast boats then go to the track suited for them.... OFF SHORE. I owned a go fast on Winni and soon saw the ridiculousness of it as I had to plane up, plane down constantly traveling the lake. They are too just too big. I had it for a few years , realized my error in judgement and sold it to someone for use in the ocean. Before you all go off and start the "ohh he doesn't know how to handle it etc" ... I use these type of boats often in the ocean were they belong. I love them more than most however they need to be used elsewhere. Can the broads handle a big go fast? Maybe yes but is it really that exciting tearing up and down the broads ???? Go out and do some real off shore running and then tell me it is. People please ..... the real issue isnt really that you want to go fast perhaps ? Show more than go??? If you really like speed then take your performance craft to the big boy track and use it were it was intended. Lets be reasonalbe for once before we get the headline regarding the tragic death of innocent people due to excessive speed on Winni. Its not if but when...... I have been on the lake regularly since the mid 80's and I see more close calls every year. Often the offending go fast's don't even see the little craft bobbing in the waves just feet from them. I would love to have all my cake and eat it too however I know better. Winni is just too small for high speeds and large performance boats. Time to grow up. Will a speed limit solve all the problems? No way , but being responsible and letting people know that 45 or 50 is a reasonable top speed in Winni is a step in the right direction. Don't worry local economy doom and gloomers.... there will be PLENTY of other boaters to take their place.

[codeman671]

I got the WinnCRAB's mailer today, sorry but you can probably guess where it ended up. In the trash...When Winnfabs realizes that boating education is key and that speed is not the root of all evil I will sign on. Until then my letters to the state will look a bit different than they suggest.

I honestly could see having a night time speed limit due to lack of visibility even though traffic is decreased at night but 45mph during the day is not the answer. Enforce the 150' rule, I see it broken probably on average 40-50 times each day I spend on the lake. Its mostly small family boats, bowriders, pontoon boats, etc. I see the big boats staying clear. Do random BWI checks coming out of the bars in the Weirs Channel. I am sure that would generate a considerable # of citations/arrests.

Throttles do not push themselves, not do boats steer too close to other objects by themselves. Educate and enforce what is already in place. As much as people complain about the speed I am sure the hike in tax dollars on property owners to pay for more boats, more equipment and more officers to inforce HB162 will cause a whole new complaint.

[Just Sold]

OK, Like Grant here I go and throw my 2 cents into the already flaming waters.

I have read most, if not all, of the posts in this thread. So here goes:

A.
A NWZ in those areas with heavy boat congestion is needed to make everyone feel safer. I will not go to the Eagle Island, Weirs or Weirs Channel areas very often and it has to be for a good reason that I would. Wolfeboro needs an expanded NWZ area. There are other areas too.

I believe we need increased NWZ's.

B.
A day time speed limit of 45 MPH does not seem to be the answer but maybe with some real study and not the rhetoric here or in other forums but by qualified people maybe another speed limit would be appropriate. The qualified study people should then report to the Legislative Committe that is looking at HB 162. This issue is so hot on either side of the aisle that the Legislative Committee needs more input but from qualified sources more than just we plain folk. Our intentions are good but do we have the real facts or rumors about what we perceive to be fact.

I do not think this is the year for a day time speed limit.

C.
Now a night time speed limit does seem appropriate. The Meredith accicent and some others even from years back support that view.
Such as:
1. Lack of observation by the driver of the boat that struck another. Could that be called Reckless Operation?
2. Higher Speed contributed to the accidents.

Unfortunately the Coast Guard and NH Marine Patrol do not report the accident data related to speed. Doesn't Reckless Operation seems to fit when speed is involved? I think it might come from the law enforcement point of view.

In the late 60's in Alton Bay there were 2 night time accidents in the same week no less and speed was a factor. Both were rear end accidents and all boats destroyed. Luckily no one was seriously injured or killed. I saw the damaged boats and the one who did the hitting in both cases was not going very slow for the damage observed.

So the danger at night has been there all along and is not a new issue. It is just more crowded and with more boats comes more accidents or at least close calls that do not get reported. They become rumors and tales of night time scares.

To me a 25 MPH speed limit at night is right.

D.
Congratulations on the boaters organizations that have come to our area. Both have a place for those with a similar view. I have not subscribed to either at this time. I am leaning to a more open discusion membership but I have concerns that neither group mentioned here in this Thread is heading that way at this time.

So I will wait on joining any.

Just my Humble Observations and Opinion - Others are welcome to continue this but I am finished.

[PROPELLER]

Islander, I am not ignoring the Meredith accident. It obviously was a collision. But I do not find it relevant to the speed limit debate because my recollection of the Marine Patrol investigation was that operator inattention & BWI were the contributing factors not speed.

[Woodsy]

I really didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into another speed limit debate. I should have known better than to try to reason using scientific logic, statistical data and cost vs emotional rhetoric.

I posted some basic scientific data on radar, how it works, and some of the reasons why it really isn't feasible to use on the lake without spending some serious money. I was backed up on the scientific side with much better explanations by some others who are more qualified than I am to state how exactly the radar proposed on the Winnfabs site works.

It seems the rallying cry for the pro-speed limit side brings up the night time accident that occured in August 2002 in Meredith Bay. The driver of the boat involved in the collision was charged with and convicted by a jury of negligent homicide by failing to keep a proper lookout. The Marine Patrol's Accident Reconstruction Team put the Baja's speed at 27-28mph. I ask what would a speed limit have accomplished in this instance? It was approximately 3mph over your proposed night time limit? I doubt very seriously a 25mph limit would have changed anything that night. The accident wasn't due to excessive speed, but operator negligence. How many times to we really have to beat that horse? Especially when the operator has been tried and convicted in a court of law. If the speed was excessive for the conditions that night I am sure it would have found its way into the trial as such. If it was a large Crownline or Bayliner would there be such finger pointing?

I am not for a speed limit, and my reasons are as follows...

1. I don't like having my persoanl freedoms infringed upon with no good reason (see below) other than people in small boats not liking people in bigger faster boats.

2. Lake Winnipesaukee is really only busy about 14 WEEKENDS a year, from Bike Week 18-June to the weekend after Labor Day 10-September. The only places its congested with lots of boat traffic is the destination towns, Weirs, Meredith, Wolfeboro, and Alton. If you go out during the week, between Sunday afternoon about 3ish to friday early afternoon, the lake is pretty much deserted. I have gone out on many a beautiful summer day midweek and encountered less than 10-15 boats. We need to impose a speed limit because the Lake is busy 28 days out of a possible 167 days? (Ice out to end of September) I boat well into November, but then again, thats just me.

3. Nobody has produced any cold hard factual data on why we need one. There are no accident stats from Winnipesaukee that show excessive speed was a factor in ANY accidents. You don't need a speed limit law to cite speed as a factor in an accident report.

4. COST! Nobody has proposed how this is going to be paid for? Who is going to pay for all of the equipment, training, new officers and court time to handle the appeals? This is certainly not an inexpensive proposal.

5. Extended NWZ in the congested areas is a far better and cheaper solution to 90% of the problems. Maybe hire a few more MP officers, but again that comes down to cost and funding.

Do we want to become like Lake George and have all boaters pay some sort of access fee to use Winni? Not to sure about the legalities of that one as Lake George is a state park and Winni is not!

You need to take the emotional rhetoric out of the equation, (from both sides)! What you need to make an informed decision is facts. I have yet to see any facts that say we need to pass a Speed Limit Law, any and then spend all sorts of money to enforce it. When the pro-speed limit faction presents facts from Winnipesaukee, not some lake that belongs to NY, and these facts are presented in a clear, cohesive, non-emotional argument, then I will reconsider my position.


Woodsy

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Islander

Propeller

The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

The report lists excessive speed as the #4 contributing factor.... Please refer to the glossary were you will find speeding is defined - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances.
Excessive speed is not directly linked to high performance boats and a particular speed value. This report shows that in 2003 fewer accidents happened at speeds over 40 than any other reported category including, not moving.

Open your eyes.

You can not legislate responsibility.

[yaker]

Speed is thrilling – especially on water where there is great flexibility of movement – and in one's own flashy, high-powered showpiece. It's no wonder that boat owners twist their thinking and abandon objectivity to justify their indulgence in fast boats on small lakes like Winnipesaukee. The rationalizations have become familiar:
There are not enough deaths yet to restrict speed. I've earned the right to go over 145. If some people are scared, they should mount a yellow flag. Why shouldn't slow boats be the ones to be restricted? People's opinions don't matter – just the facts, even though there are no records kept. If boats aren't allowed to speed, the whole lakes region economy will collapse. There's no real justification for speed limits – just some elitists don't like us.
Woody (4-26-05) has the real answer to the power-vs.-paddle dispute; we need full-time MP staffing. JeffK has the reason: "There are examples of reckless boating all over the lake." And speeding is only one of many boating problems.
Speed limits won't stop all speeders anymore than they do on our highways, but at least they set a reasonable guideline. If the State ever takes responsibility for enforcing safe boating practices, speed limits will be a useful tool. Maybe limits will even help some high-speed addicts to realize, as stated by Great Idea, that "Go fast boats on Winni are ridiculous."

[dan]

While I completely agree with point #1, point # 2 say,s it all. I have been on the water since 89. The 1st 4yrs on Cow and the rest on the mainland. During the week days there isn,t a problem. It would be a shame to add more rules to try to help a problem that occurs on such a few day,s.

[chase1]

AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.


Frank,

How can it be possible to ignore statistics that according to your statement have not been collected???? FYI operators can be cited for excessive speed and accident reports currently include speed data.

Winnfabs has a link to Coast Guard statistics which show no reason for the proposed speed limit.

[Fat Jack]

I'd be curious to know how this issue is effecting the sales of GFBL boats these days. This is usually about the time when they should be getting busy with sales. The marina's that profit most from cigarette boats (Channel, Lakeport Landing, Silver Sands, Shep Brown, etc) simply have to know that a speed limit is coming, whether its this time or next. Their potential customers have to be asking them about it. I'm sure the salesmen would like to answer that "it will never happen", but their lawyers are telling them to temper that with some disclaimers like the stockbrokers are all giving these days about "doing your own diligence". This has to make the buyers wary (unless they are a bit thick). If I relied on the seller's assertion that there was no such threat and threw down a couple hundred K for a boat simply so I could fly around Winnipesaukee at over 90MPH, then the 45MPH speed limit came along, I know what I would do. And if I can forsee that, so can the marina owners and their lawyers. So they must be speaking very carefully and losing a lot of sales as a result. I'd imagine that they must already be feeling this issue in a big way, yet I have not heard anything to indicate that our local economy is in the predicted free fall as a result.
Can anyone WHO HAS REAL KNOWLEDGE of the issue comment on how the go-fast marinas are doing so far this spring? Please no flaming...just answer if you know anything.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into another speed limit debate.

Come again? You initiated this thread with a string entitled "Speed Limit : why it will ot work", threw out a bunch of opinions, and you did not intend for it to turn into a speed limit debate? I find that as hard to believe as the rest of your statements on this forum. You sound like an intelligent guy, so please try to give the rest of us some credit.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I'd be curious to know how this issue is effecting the sales of GFBL boats these days.

To answer your question,the proposed speedlimit is not slowing down the sale of performance boats.Most people feel the law will not pass.So,sales go on.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack....

Actually I posted "Speed Limit Enforcement (Why it will not work) In my original post, I stated why (in very clear, easy to understand terms) radar would not work as the Winnfab folks are proposing. This was not an opinion, merely scientific fact. I even went so far as to draw a diagram so it would be clearer to understand! I also offered an alternative in the form of a military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. I was backed up on my radar post by a few others with a bit more knowledge on how it works. Do some research on how radar actually works!

I do have an opinion on a speed limit, I personally do not see the NEED for one. You can read the post I have above that lists the reasons. I understand some people FEEL there should be a speed limit. I have posted and asked for data that would be a good argument for changing my mind. I have yet to see anything but emotional flaming rhetoric! The reason Winnfabs haven't posted any facts to bolster your argument for a speed limit is because there isn't any compelling data whatsoever that indicates speed is an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee! I challenge you to stop the emotional rhetoric and actually post FACTS!

All I am reading from the Winnfab crowd is "I don't feel safe" (even though with 108,000 registered boats in NH there were only 49 accidents in 2003) It would be great if cars had such a good track record!

How "GFBL" boats don't belong on Winni (what exactly does belong on Winni and who decides that? I thought this was America and we could make our own decisions on how we choose recreate?) But maybe I am mistaken? When was freedom of choice removed?

By ISLANDER
Obviously there are less fatalities in boats over 26'. These boats are a very small percentage of all boats.

Boats over 26' are by Islander's own admission a very small percentage. The Go-Fast boats are an even smaller percentage of that! Yet they are the target du'Jour. After them, its on to the big cruisers! I wonder of Ole Merrill Faye will stop selling the big 35' Chapparal cruisers then? Or what about the Chapparal SSi line of boats that top out well above his 45mph limit. Is he going to stop selling those? He hasn't yet, even though he is the one who allegedly asked Rep. Pilliod to propose HB-162!

There are no accident statistics that point to a problem with speed. The Marine Patrol would be the first ones to be screaming if speed were an issue anywhere in NH.

Woodsy

[Aquadeziac]

I just want to know if Woody has a go fast boat?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I do have an opinion on a speed limit, I personally do not see the NEED for one. You can read the post I have above that lists the reasons. I understand some people FEEL there should be a speed limit. I have posted and asked for data that would be a good argument for changing my mind.

Ok, just try paddling a kayak across the main lake on any weekend this summer. I bet you would see the need for a speed limit pretty fast.

How "GFBL" boats don't belong on Winni (what exactly does belong on Winni and who decides that? I thought this was America and we could make our own decisions on how we choose recreate?) But maybe I am mistaken? When was freedom of choice removed?

Freedom of choice happenes to belong to all boaters, not just the fast powerboaters.

... The Go-Fast boats are an even smaller percentage of that! Yet they are the target du'Jour. After them, its on to the big cruisers!

A speed limit isn't a hp limit! It's not targeting any type of boat.

There are no accident statistics that point to a problem with speed. The Marine Patrol would be the first ones to be screaming if speed were an issue anywhere in NH.

How many lakes in NH have a daytime speed limit? This has been pointed out many times: without a speed limit law, speed is rarely going to be sited as the reason for an accident.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I stated why radar would not work as the Winnfab folks are proposing. This was not an opinion, merely scientific fact.

No, it was OPINION. In FACT, Winnfabs just proposes that it will work here as good as it does on other lakes, like Lake George, where it works well enough that their Director Barrett says "convictions are the norm". That's a FACT. It might be less accurate on water than on land, but that is not a problem for us. We are not expecting the MP to catch people going 46. If the marine radar being used on all the other lakes has an inaccuracy of even +/- 10, that would be fine for our purposes. Let someone tagged for going 90 tell the judge that he is innocent because the radar inaccuracy was +/- 10MPH.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I was backed up on my radar post by a few others with a bit more knowledge on how it works.

You were backed up by other speed limit opponents. I've seen no unbiased expert testimony that says marine radar is ineffective, and much that says it is effective enough for the intended purpose. Again, it is working "well enough" on every other Winnipesaukee-type lake in the country. That's the best evidence.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The reason Winnfabs haven't posted any facts to bolster your argument for a speed limit is because there isn't any compelling data whatsoever that indicates speed is an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee! I challenge you to stop the emotional rhetoric and actually post FACTS!

I thought we were through playing the "statistics" game? For the final time (And I mean final this time), I agree, there are no statistics that say any accident on Winnipesaukee has ever been caused by a boat going too fast....because there is currently no such thing as "too fast" on Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

How "GFBL" boats don't belong on Winni.

Who said that? I never heard that position offered by Winnfabs. Again (and this is also the final time). This is about speed, not certain boats or the people who drive them. It is only about SPEED. Why do you feel the need to keep trying to paint this as something it is not?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There are no accident statistics that point to a problem with speed.

I said above was my final time playing the "statistics" game, and I meant it. But what do statistics have to do with it anyway? This is not about statistics, facts, or the need to prove a problem exists. This is about public opinion. NH's citizens will say what they want, and it will be. This is their lake, and they want it back. If they decide they want a speed limit, they will get one. If the majority of NH citizens decides they want to change the name of the lake to Lake Bob, then they do not need to prove that it is needed, or to show statistics and facts that prove a real problem exists. So long as their mandate is not unconstitutional or illegal, the legislature will follow it. The go-fast crowd has always been well-organized and has managed to stop earlier attempts before word got out. But his time, the people are aware and organizing and will get a chance to make their opinion known. So let us stop having this debate on this forum. Your chance to voice your opinion will come, as will mine. Let us see what the majority of NH's citizens want.
I think I have had enough of this debate with you now.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack....

You still haven't posted how you intend to pay for this speed enforcement. I understand your passionate about having a speed limit. You don't seem to think excessive speed can be put on an accident report because their is no speed limit. Wrong again! If you are driving in at 20mph during a blizzard, and you wreck your car into a pole, a police officer most certainly can cite you for excessive speed even if the posted limit was 55 mph! Why? Becauce your speed was excessive for the conditions, resulting in you being charged with operator negiligence! Not to mention excessive speed would most certainly find its way into the accident report even if he didn't write you a ticket! Give it up!

You cite Lake George again and again, so what? Lake George is not Winni. I boat on Lake George and it costs me $7.50 per day in an ACCESS FEE! Are you saying you want FEE BASED ACCESS to Winnipesaukee as well? The money needed to support this speed limit program has to come from somewhere.

Do you boat on Lake George? Are you familiar at all with the boating character of that lake? They do not have a 150' rule, thier navigation system is different etc, etc. You state thier director says radar enforcement results in lots of convictions? Where can I find those facts? Call NY and get thier stats on speeding at Lake George and post them. Lets see how many of those convictions are for speeding in no wake zones. I have seen lots of go-fast boats on Lake George. I have never witnessed the speed limit enforcement on that lake.

You are correct in the Legislature should act in accordance with the requests and best interests of its citizens. All of its citizens, not just the ones who live on Winnipesaukee as I am lucky enough to do. The legislature also has a fiduciary duty to all NH citizens not to spend money frivoulously. In order for the legislature to SPEND MONEY, there has to be a DEMONSTRABLE NEED to do so. They also have to state how they propose to come up with the FUNDING for thier proposed bill. Winnfabs have not shown any demonstrable need other than emotional rhetoric and I wonder how many are actually NH citizens? How do you propose to fund this speed limit enforcement? Although you think that its ok to let a judge decide on the accuracy of a radar gun, I am sure the courts would be interested to know who is going to pay for thier time as well.....

Woodsy

[chase1]

I said above was my final time playing the "statistics" game, and I meant it. But what do statistics have to do with it anyway? This is not about statistics, facts, or the need to prove a problem exists. This is about public opinion. NH's citizens will say what they want, and it will be.

Fat Jack,


I think we could all agree that NH property taxes are high and the general public would like to do away with them.

This round goes to Woodsy.


Chase1

[Fat Jack]

Chase,
How smart of you! You found an exception to this rule. I wonder if there are any others? I guess you are right then that this round went to Woodsy, since there was this exception. Now, let's move on.

[Great Idea]

In past threads regarding speed usually one or two members of the forum would step out in oposition to fast speeds/boats on Winni and immediately be "attacked" by the same group of big, go fast boating members. I have recently noticed more and more folks stepping up however to fight back against the go fast arguement. Its great to see finally. Fat Jack will ultimatley "win" because the folks of NH who use/live at Winni are fed up with the go fast boats flying around the lake. I had a guy go by me in narrow channel YESTERDAY at 60 plus within 40-50 ft of my boat near Bear and he and his buddy weren't even looking up or forward. They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash. Never even saw us or if they did they didn't much care. Everyone keeps referencing the beloved "stats"... Blah, Blah.... blah.... Marine Patrol is in place and can enforce the speed limit as the State Police do with some added equipment. If fees need to be added to do it then so be it. Its worth it if we can save even just one life . Remember its not a quetion of if but when regarding a fatal accident involving speed...... who wants to be on the speed side of the fence when that happens? Time to grow up and use our toys responsibly kids. Take your "go fast boat" out to the big track off shore were it belongs.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

... I wonder how many are actually NH citizens? How do you propose to fund this speed limit enforcement? Although you think that its ok to let a judge decide on the accuracy of a radar gun, I am sure the courts would be interested to know who is going to pay for thier time as well.....

I'm a NH citizen. And there's ways to pay for this, other than through property taxes. Here's something to consider: Kayaking is now the fastest growing segment of the entire boating community. As a kayaker, I would certainly be willing to pay a reasonable registration fee, if the funds were used toward more lake marine patrol and towards more car top put ins (or at least some parking areas). And I think most other paddlers would also be willing to help pay to make the lakes more accessable and safer for us.

[Bear Lover]

Great Idea

You have picked up on the #1 reason why the speed limit will pass. Politicians will vote for it to cover themselves. If there is a death in the next few years involving speed it will get major coverage. Nobody wants to be trying to justify why they voted against a speed limit under those conditions.

The safest thing, in more ways than one, is for them to vote in favor of the limit.

Barrett will also get the heat big time if there is a speed related death.

[PROPELLER]

In addition to what Great Idea said, it also appears to me that there are more Forum posters who don't own high performance boats speaking out against a speed limit compared to past threads.

I think it also remains to be seen that the folks of NH who want a speed limit are in the majority as Great Idea seems to suggest. Many of the speed limit supporters as well as property owners on Winnipesaukee are not NH residents. Its very unclear to me at this time if the majority of NH residents who use Winnipesaukee are for or against a speed limit.

It will be interesting to see once the Summer is in full swing & I begin to see & talk to people where my boat is docked what the consensus is. In past years & to this point now I have not experienced a public outcry for a speed limit from anyone I am in contact with or that there is grave concern for safety because of too many boats going too fast. And I don't know anyone who owns a high performance boat so thats not the reason.

The only complaints about too many boats going too fast that I have heard are on this forum. I have never heard complaints about speeding boats or stories about close calls with speeding boats from anyone I am in contact with.

[chase1]

Marine Patrol is in place and can enforce the speed limit as the State Police do with some added equipment. If fees need to be added to do it then so be it. Its worth it if we can save even just one life . Remember its not a quetion of if but when regarding a fatal accident involving speed...... who wants to be on the speed side of the fence when that happens? Time to grow up and use our toys responsibly kids. Take your "go fast boat" out to the big track off shore were it belongs.[/

QUOTE]

Great Idea,

When a fatal accident happens due to speed I will gladly remain on my side of the fence where the view is great from my hp boat, sailing dinghy or kayak. The statistics show that this side is quieter. I agree that saving lives is worth effort, even if just one.... but statistics show us that efforts will be most effective if focused on boating safety and education. The same budget and energy can save far more if focused where the problem is identified. This is why we keep accident records.

You must be an expert, please help me identify where the boats go.
Large live aboard cruisers? Live Aboard....on this lake?
Kayaks? Mine is not identified as a Winnipesaukee special and is seems only limited by my ability to operate safley.
Small 10' Sail Boat? It has no classification indicating Min/Max of water body for usage.
Competition Ski Boat? Are the Broads what the engineers had in mind when designing the boat? Am I safe there.


Time to grow up and recognize that we are all part of the problem. To start, be proactive and take a course.

If you feel things need to improve then support Marine Patrol and lobby for the added resources they need to be more effective enforcing current laws.

Chase1

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Great Idea

You have picked up on the #1 reason why the speed limit will pass. Politicians will vote for it to cover themselves. If there is a death in the next few years involving speed it will get major coverage. Nobody wants to be trying to justify why they voted against a speed limit under those conditions.

The safest thing, in more ways than one, is for them to vote in favor of the limit.

Barrett will also get the heat big time if there is a speed related death.

Bear Lover,

You, as any American should be outraged if this could even be a possibility..... Men and Women have and are currently giving up their lives to protect us from this.

What's next?

Chase1

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by chase1

Bear Lover,

You, as any American should be outraged if this could even be a possibility..... Men and Women have and are currently giving up their lives to protect us from this.

What's next?

Chase1

chase1

I don't understand you. What am I supposed to be outraged about.

A politician taking the safest route is human nature, it is the norm.

Are you trying to say that american are dying in Iraq to prevent a speed limit on Winnipesaukee? If so you way off track.

Please be more clear.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I think it also remains to be seen that the folks of NH who want a speed limit are in the majority as Great Idea seems to suggest. Many of the speed limit supporters as well as property owners on Winnipesaukee are not NH residents. Its very unclear to me at this time if the majority of NH residents who use Winnipesaukee are for or against a speed limit.

Anybody that is domiciled in NH is a NH resident, see the voting regulations below. Summer residents are citizens of NH they day they arrive at their summer place, provided they are citizens of the US. The can also register to vote if they are domiciled within 10 days of an election.

They can also contact their state Representatives as NH citizens.

from http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm
"WHO CAN REGISTER
New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, and a United States Citizen, may register with the town or city clerk where they live up to 10 days before any election. You may also register on election day at the polling place. The town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of qualification they should bring to register.

There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You may register as soon as you move into your new community."

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

I had a guy go by me in narrow channel YESTERDAY at 60 plus within 40-50 ft of my boat near Bear and he and his buddy weren't even looking up or forward. They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash. Never even saw us or if they did they didn't much care.

I am far more worried about reckless boaters than simply fast boaters. These boaters were reckless and were violating existing laws. What you needed to be protected from is their stupidity and carelessness. Further, they would have been just as guilty if they had been traveling at 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 MPH. If the idiots had actually hit you at 40 MPH do you think the outcome would have been significantly better than at 60 MPH? No MP was around to do anything about it either, which seems to be the case for most of these problems which happen far more frequently at speeds less than 45 than they do at higher speeds. Waving a speed limit law at the offenders won't make any difference. They are ignoring existing laws (and not getting caught) and one more to ignore won't make a difference.

I was also out yesterday, for the first time this season. A fishing boat approached from the port side and he should have been the give-way vessel. He did not slow and cut right across me at a close distance. I slowed to avoid a collision. He was probably doing 25 - 35 MPH. I was going 30 MPH. No MP for this close call either.

When I was clear of traffic I pushed my boat to 57 MPH (WOT). I saw a small powered inflatable fishing and gave him a wide berth. As far as I am concerned I was boating responsibly and enjoyably and I don't support your trying to define me as a criminal because I want to go faster than you.

Suppose I'd like to make it a crime for fishing boats to block traffic flow in a channel. If passed, it would immediately make these fishermen criminals as well. This seems to be part of the speed limit arguement, if there was a speed limit then the boats going faster would be breaking the law. Well, DUH.

If I can hear a discussion about the visibility and response time required to properly handle a boat at very high speeds and the specific lack of those conditions on Winni I would be glad to listen. In any case, at 55 MPH I can see and easily react to the conditions around me. I suspect this would be true for at least 65MPH as well. The responsible GFBL boaters that have posted indicate they can travel at 70+ and maintain control and visibility.

As for my credentials, I am a NH resident x 2 houses, both on the water, and I don't own a GFBL boat (and probably never will) but my next boat will probably go 60.

[PROPELLER]

Islander, The voting regulation you cite states NH residents can register to vote. Simply spending a few weekends at your Winnipesaukee cottage does not qualify. Chapter 654 under elections states that you must be domiciled in NH & you can only claim domicile in 1 state. You must also register your motor vehicles & apply for NH drivers licence within 60 days of becoming a resident. A domicile for voting purposes by definition is where a person more than any other place has established a physical presence & manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social & civil purposes.

I also recall when my mother in law was thinking of claiming NH as her primary residence instead of Florida that she would have to spend 180 days or 6 months in NH & she does not so she continued to claim Florida her primary residence.

Many boaters on Winnipesaukee claim Massachusetts as their primary residence & are registered to vote there. If you are registered to vote in another state & claim your primary residence in another state & own property in NH you can not register to vote in NH also.

[Great Idea]

Chase1 ,

You mention saftey and enforcement...... if I remember right part of the "saftey" on our highways involves speed LIMITS. All types of cars are welcome on all types of roads no matter their size or hp..... however they are required to ALL maintain the speed limit. Your arquement about the boat size etc is kind of silly indeed. Your welcome to drive your pretty Chase boat anywhere you like as long as you do so safely. Slowing down is part of saftey and reducing the potential of serious accidents involves slower operating speeds. My point is that if you have a boat that has hundreds and hundreds of hp way not take it to the place suited for it's speed potential? Enforcement and training ARE the most important components of improving the situation on the lake however without a speed limit as a component improved safety can't be achieved. Winni is just too crowded and small to support using boats at high speeds. Slowing folks down saves lives. End of story. I keep hearing posters say they don't see incidences of speed/close calls and I wonder how much time they really spend on the lake?? I see reckless operation involving speed all too often. Maybe it doesn't sound like a "Great Idea" to slow everyone down but I'll stick with the idea and make the sacrifice (I LOVE speed) if it means some innocent person or family doesn't get run down and killed.

[Woodsy]

By GREAT IDEA
I had a guy go by me in narrow channel YESTERDAY at 60 plus within 40-50 ft of my boat near Bear and he and his buddy weren't even looking up or forward. They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash. Never even saw us or if they did they didn't much care.

Great Idea….

You don’t see the problem with your story do you? Let us assume for the sake of argument you were at headway speed, minding your own business. Let us also assume for arguments sake, that you are correct in that the offending boat passed by you within 40-50ft at 60+ mph. Here where it gets sticky…

Question: How would a speed limit have changed your story?
Answer: It would not. It really doesn’t matter how fast the offending boat was traveling, he violated the 150’ rule. If the offending boat was on plane within 150’ of you then it really doesn’t matter how fast he was going. He broke the rule!

Question: What would have happened if a MP officer had witnessed this event?
Answer: The offending boat should have been pulled over and cited for violating the 150’ rule as well as reckless operation because the operator was not keeping a proper lookout. (You stated: “They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash”)

Question: What would have happened if a MP officer had witnessed this event and there was a speed limit?
Answer: The offending boat should have been pulled over and cited for violating the 150’ rule as well as reckless operation because the operator was not keeping a proper lookout. However, unless the MP boat was in the perfect position to radar the offending boat there is no way to accurately tell how fast the offender was traveling. More than likely a speeding citation would not have been issued, and if it was, it would be easily defeated in a court of law.

Question: What would have helped prevent this situation?
Answer: Better boater education, (so that maybe the offending operator would be more vigilant while operating his boat) more Full Time MP Officers to provide better coverage & enforcement of existing rules on the lake.

How would a speed limit mattered in this case? It didn’t. We also know that even with specialized training the MP officers receive, distance is hard to judge on water, so is speed. Your story Great Idea is unfortunately full of holes when it comes to demonstrating the need for a speed limit. It does work really well however for demonstrating the need for more full time MP officers around the lake.

Woodsy

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, The voting regulation you cite states NH residents can register to vote. Simply spending a few weekends at your Winnipesaukee cottage does not qualify. Chapter 654 under elections states that you must be domiciled in NH & you can only claim domicile in 1 state. You must also register your motor vehicles & apply for NH drivers licence within 60 days of becoming a resident. A domicile for voting purposes by definition is where a person more than any other place has established a physical presence & manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social & civil purposes.

I also recall when my mother in law was thinking of claiming NH as her primary residence instead of Florida that she would have to spend 180 days or 6 months in NH & she does not so she continued to claim Florida her primary residence.

Many boaters on Winnipesaukee claim Massachusetts as their primary residence & are registered to vote there. If you are registered to vote in another state & claim your primary residence in another state & own property in NH you can not register to vote in NH also.

Propeller

You can read it in plain english. There is no minimum residence requirement, NONE.

You can only claim domicile in one state AT A TIME! There is no law about how often you can move back and forth. And yes, even weekends count.

From April to November I am domiciled in NH. I can and do vote in NH elections.

The 6 months residence is about taxes. Totally different story. They don't want people claiming residence in certain states for tax reasons. But when I lay my head down at my island home I am a NH taxpayer, resident and citizen. Lots of "locals" don't like this, but its the law.

They do give you some funny looks when you register to vote with a island address. But there is nothing they can do about it.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

chase1

I don't understand you. What am I supposed to be outraged about.

A politician taking the safest route is human nature, it is the norm.

Are you trying to say that american are dying in Iraq to prevent a speed limit on Winnipesaukee? If so you way off track.

Please be more clear.

Bear Lover,

A politician should be acting per the constitution to promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. They should be voting as such and not to "cover themselves" as you stated. There are no statistics that show our general welfare will benefit from bill 162. It may be human nature to take the safest route but it is not how this country was founded.

Chase1

[Skip]

Wow,

We are really starting to digress on this thread, maybe its time Don locked this one down too.

That said, I have to put on my Ward Moderator hat and say that Propellor has done an excellent job of defining residency, an issue that many misunderstand (or confuse with citizenry)or try to pull an "end run" on.

Islander is correct, you can move as often as you like. But in the case given by Islander, upon "moving" to New Hampshire in April, by June Islander will have had to obtained a New Hampshire Driver's license and registered any vehicles owned by same in the State of New Hampshire.

And come September/November, as long as a New Hampshire resident and not voting in any other State, can happily go to the polling place and cast a ballot. But you must be claimiming bonified residency. If you took Islander at his word, imagine the havoc that could reign on election day. Thousands of people from neighboring States could come to New Hampshire on election day, claim "residency" for just that day, and sway entire elections. That does not happen (although some claim it may be happening in University and border towns) because residency cannot be turned off & on like a light switch.

Upon leaving New Hampshire in November, Islander can then follow the procedures in the State moved to in reference to licensing and registration, and surrender the New Hampshire license & taga as he is no longer a resident here. Upon moving back to New Hampshire the following april, again by June the old State's licenses & registrations must be surrendered, and New New Hampshire credentials secured.

Wow, pretty expensive and time consuming!

Of course other factors that come in to play is where, each year, Islander lists home address for Federal and State tax purposes.

As far as the motor Vehicle code goes, no...you cannot come to New Hampshire for 59 days, then claim you went back to your home state and start the clock ticking all over again. If Islander is living here for the better part of 8 months each year displaying out of state tags, with convenient breaks to avoid registration, that's called visiting!

You can stay at the Lake the amount of time indicated by Islander, and still have your residency in another State. Many people do. Or you can claim you really have moved to New Hampshire and secure all the necessary licenses. But New Hampshire is not a dual residency State. You may get away with it for years, or forever. But then again, you may not. The further inland you live, the less likely enforcement seems to be. Here along the Maine border, it is fairly common to see people getting caugght doing what Islander professes as legal....good thing the local judges don't agree!

Finally, if I was a law enforcement official in the mythical town we are talking about, and I saw an individual with out of State tags for 8 months out of the year registering and voting as a New Hampshire resident, I would pull the voting list as evidence. I would also obtain a certified copy of the individuals's motor vehicle license & registration data from the State being displayed and then summons the indivdual for failing to register. I would in turn present the evidence of my investigation to the Attorney General's Office for review in reference to possible fraudulent voting. Very seldom would I have airtight evidence like that!

Anyway, kudos Propellor!

Skip

[Rayhunt]

Wow is this a hot topic here.. Perhaps another point of view can bring this thread somewhat back to center..
The speed limit ...
Personaly I think the idea has merit . However as a regular winni boater I can attest to rarely having problems with the speed of any boat ..but the lack of knowledge as to the rules of safe passage .And the lack of awareness as to ones surroundings.. I would much rather see some sort of limit to the numbers and size of vessels on the lake.. I dont believe a speed law will have an effect on either. And this has been reitterated by the head of the Marine Patrol himself ! Wouldnt it be more beneficial to have them available immediately in case of an accident rather than tied up with a speeder that MAY contribute to an accident. We live on the lake and see less high speed boats every year for whatever reason.. And the noise level has also improved greatly since that law was passed.. If you aske me ..HERES THE PROBLEM

[Islander]

Skip

Get serious for a minute. If you know as much about elections as you claim you know that you can't come to NH for the day and vote. You need to reside for 10 days and come up with utility bills etc. to prove residency.

And sorry, I have a NH CDL license and all the vehicles I own are register in NH.

The 60 day limit to get an in state license is broken more that the speed limit on 93. That would mean most summer residents need a NH license even if they don't vote. And if you leave the state to winter in, say Florida, you should be getting a license there.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...You need to reside for 10 days and come up with utility bills etc. to prove residency...

I guess being the elected Ward Moderator for a number of years in one of this State's Cities doesn't qualify me to retort, but against better judgement here I go....

First, you need to carefully review RSA 654:28. There is no ten day residency requirement, the ten days you refer to is the deadline supervisors of the checklist are required (on a Saturday ten days before the election) to pre-register voters for an election. At that session, or on the same day as the election, voters must identify themselves and prove some form of residency. If the potential voter identifies themself properly, but has no paper means of proving residency, they can sign a sworn affadavit (citizenship affadavit) provided by the Attorney General's Office in lieu of evidentiary material.

Originally Posted by Islander

The 60 day limit to get an in state license is broken more that the speed limit on 93. That would mean most summer residents need a NH license even if they don't vote. And if you leave the state to winter in, say Florida, you should be getting a license there.

No, no , no....a summer resident does not need to obtain NH licenses or registrations unless they intend to declare New Hampshire as their domicile, simple as that. And virtually all of our fine NH summer residents already know this. And going to the polls and voting in a New Hampshire election is prima facie evidence that the person(s) indeed intended this State to be their domicile. Really nothing hard to understand here....if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck..well, you know the answer.

Thank you Don for letting me digress here, this will be my last post in this particular thread.

And Islander, if you would like to e-mail me off-line I will be more than happy to provide you with my credentials (no need in boring the long time readers here who already know me), which areas of New Hampshire State Statutes that your advice is in conflict with, and if you want to pay the postage I will even let you borrow my election bible....the New Hampshire Election Procedure Manual: 2004-2005 as published by the Department of State, William M. Gardner Secretary of State.

By the way, my darling wife and long time suffering Supervisor of the Checklist (suffering, because she has to put up with me all day every election) has verified this post. And lord knows she can't be wrong!

Have a good evening, and thank you for being a resident of this beautiful State!

Skip

[codeman671]

Lets say for a sec that HB162 actually passed (won't get my vote...) and a speed limit is put into place. What are Winnfabs and everyone else on this forum going to blame the next accident or death on??? It will happen and a speed limit is not going to prevent it. Where will you point your fingers at then??? What will you try to ban next??? I would love to see how that will play out...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Lets say for a sec that HB162 actually passed (won't get my vote...) and a speed limit is put into place. What are Winnfabs and everyone else on this forum going to blame the next accident or death on??? It will happen and a speed limit is not going to prevent it. Where will you point your fingers at then??? What will you try to ban next??? I would love to see how that will play out...

Has anyone here even suggested that a speed limit will eliminate all accidents? No. But it will likely prevent some. And, in doing so, it will make the lake safer for the average boater. Is this so hard to understand? After all, highways have speed limits for this exact same reason.

The opponents to a speed limit have one main concern ... that they will have to slow down to a reasonable speed. (And I do understand that "reasonable speed" is not the same figure for all of us.) The opponents say that we cannot prove that a speed limit will make the lake any safer. But can they prove that it won't make the lake safer? Yet they are so arrogent that they are willing to bet other people's lives that they are right. And for what reason? Just so that they can legally go as fast as they want on Winni. This seems rather selfish to me.

[chase1]

Great Idea,

You mention safety and enforcement...... if I remember right part of the "safety" on our highways involves speed LIMITS

Highway speed limits are not evidence for the need of the same on our waterways. Both have different factors that influence a safe rate of travel. Highways do not have a 150' rule they have lane markings as pointed out by Winnfabs.....Think of the distance separating a car from roadside property and oncoming traffic. Would you like to pull the current 150' navigation law because it is NOT part of the safety on our highways?

I keep hearing posters say they don't see incidences of speed/close calls and I wonder how much time they really spend on the lake??

They are referring to accident data. There is no data to support your view that “ Winni is just too crowded and small to support using boats at high speeds” (I assume above 45mph). Accident data does not support the need of a speed limit yet does indicate the need for better boating education. Your sightings regarding reckless operation and excessive speed are also supported with data (refer to the CG report linked on Winnfabs) showing them to be of the top four contributing factors of all boating accidents. Current navigation laws cover this type of activity. Enforcement and education (training) are the most important components of improving the situation…not more legislation.

My point is that if you have a boat that has hundreds and hundreds of hp way not take it to the place suited for it's speed potential

I do…. I use my boats of the coast as well as at the lake because...

Your welcome to drive your pretty Chase boat anywhere you like as long as you do so safely

.

We seem to agree.

Chase1

[Mee-n-Mac]

Seeing as this thread had turned in another speed limit discussion I thought I'd try a different approach. For the moment how about everyone on either side of the issue take a breather (you can rest now to hyperventilate later) and consider one possible alternative concept. It seems to me that the safety concern voiced by the pro-SL side is one of getting hit by a boat traveling at high speed. The talk is about reaction times (? though not about sight lines and distances ?) and how the GF boater won't be able to avoid hitting them. What if every concerned boater was able to equip his/her vessel (of any type) with a portable, battery powered device that would warn, with sufficient time, other boaters of their presence. Every "GF boat" would be required to equip themselves with a "detector" that would work in conjunction with the portable warning device. Indeed even non-GF boats could opt to install a "detector". Lets assume for the moment that the reliability of the advance warning is 99.999999 % (ie - more perfect than your brain surgeon). Further more the cost of the portable device would be $10 - $20 and the "detector" somewhere between $100 - $120. Any boat going faster than a SL (mph is TBD) w/o the "detector" is subject to a fine and the "detector" itself is easily detectable by the MP when it's in operation. Of course such devices have practical safety warning uses beyond mere "high" speed collision avoidance, they're useful in avoiding "low" speed collisions where visibility is obscured (fog, rain, sun, glare) or when it's dark and can provide additional safety against inattentive and/or stupid* boaters (when a "detector" is installed). It's not impossible that you could get an insurance break to offset the cost. So forgetting for a moment about how it could be done, assume for this post that it can be done, would this be an alternative that you would consider in place of all encompasing SL or no SL ?

*of course you can't ever defeat really stupendous stupidity but you can try.

**again before everyone says it can't be done because of X, Y and Z imagine just for moment that it can be done. Besides I know it can be done, the only issue is cost and I have a strong suspicion that for this non-demanding implementation the costs mentioned above are in the ballpark.

[ITD]

You know, I find it interesting that some of the people advocating a SL seem to be OK with interpreting or ignoring significant data to suit their own purposes. Some, not all mind you but some, post as though many bad things have happened to them on Winni. when in fact they had never even been on the big lake. Now we have someone who based on the amount of time he spends in NH probably should be registered in NH year round yet seems to vote where ever his purpose is best suited. A simple call to your town clerk would inform that this is not acceptable behavior and probably against the law. Voter laws are in place to prevent fraud.

The call for a SL seems to be based on dislike of GFBL boats. But GFBL boats are already illegal on Winni. because of the BL (Be Loud) part. Yet they are still there, seems to me that would be an area of focus were I against these boats. When I look at the statistics, I see nothing that says to me that there are more accidents caused by boats going over 45 mph. Quite the contrary actually.

Looking objectively at the data I would say canoes and such are extremely dangerous when compared to boats that travel over 45mph and should be further regulated. I would have a strong case for a law, based on the data and the concerns of some on this forum, that prohibits canoes/kayaks to be more than say 300ft from any shore and require the best possible life jackets and helmets be worn at all times. I could just imagine the outrage were this type of bill to be submitted.

Based on history and statistics and the fact that when you bolt an engine to ANY type of vehicle, accidents will happen. Unfortunately, those who want a SL seem to be waiting for a tragedy to occur so they can exploit it and get their way. I'm sure when something happens, reporters and legislators will find or be directed to the comments on this forum. I just hope that whoever those people are, they get the whole story based on facts rather than emotional hype.