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

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2006, 10:18 PM   #1
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Will NH lakes be safer?

A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 10:40 PM   #2
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Based upon a 600 person telephonehttp://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/survey. The last time that I checked, NH had approximately 1.2 million people living within its borders. 600, statistically speaking, is a very small sampling. That's just 0.05% of the population if my ciphering is correct.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 11:00 PM   #3
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Yankee

In a poll they don't call everybody in the state. Polling is a science. They call a sampling.

That why its call a poll.

And this poll is not the one you linked to. This poll was just taken.

And it also shows only 5% of NH voters think it will not make the lakes more enjoyable.

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes more
enjoyable, or not?

74% - Yes, believe will make lakes more enjoyable
5% - No, do not believe will make lakes more enjoyable
21% - Undecided
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 11:12 PM   #4
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!

There seems to be an echo in the forum...

We have read these words previously.

Have you depleted your bag of trick-words?
GWC... is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 01:40 AM   #5
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
There seems to be an echo in the forum...

We have read these words previously.

Have you depleted your bag of trick-words?
I don't think you have read these words before. This is a new poll, released TODAY!

The old poll from last June was 66%. That poll has been criticized here because it didn't mention 45/25. Now the poll taken a few days ago, specifying 45/25, is 84%.

NH voters want HB162.
Island Lover is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 02-17-2006, 07:51 AM   #6
winnilaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default How about this poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided
This is interesting, it might be worth the money to conduct these polls?

Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer?

Or

Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer?

Or

Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer?

Etc.

Can you guess what the percentages might be?

I agree with the poll results based on the question.
winnilaker is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:31 AM   #7
Gilligan
Senior Member
 
Gilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
Arrow Poll of general public or boaters?

How many of the residents of the state use the lake or are boaters?
Non-boaters could well be influenced to believe that a 45/25 speed limit would make the lake a safer place. Faster than that in a boat can sound very scary to a non-boater.

A poll that targets those that use the effected lake would be much more significant than one which surveys the general public.
__________________
Gilligan is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:41 AM   #8
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winnilaker

I agree with the poll results based on the question.
Its nice to see that we agree on something. Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:52 AM   #9
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default America moves on a truck!

Hey WinniLaker, let's not be picking on tractor-trailer 18 wheel trucks. Everything in this country got there on a big truck and truck drivers are held to higher driving safety standards than cars. Just ask you local police dept if they hold the big trucks to higher standards.

One large reason why there is now a nation wide shortage of CDL-A truck drivers is because it is a very difficult state license test to pass. About seven out of eight flunk it.

A simple and straight-ahead question it is. "Do you think NH lakes will be safer with a 45-25 speed limit?"

In case you forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:04 AM   #10
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

The lakes would be safer if the marinas would stop renting boats to people who don't have a CLUE.......never mind being certified.I've never had a close call with a go fast boat....but I've had several with uneducated tourists in rentals.Two years ago a rental pontoon boat at WOT tried to pass between me and a skier in the water.They have no idea what the 150' rule means.Several times I've had rentals throw a wake up on me while towing one of the kids on a water toy.........while traveling at headway speed near shore.

Poll question......Would the lakes be safer if rental customers had to be certified???
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:13 AM   #11
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default Safer than what

There is plenty of evidence that speeds above 45 is not a factor in any signficant number of accidents, so what's the point of the poll? Safer than what? Doesn't safer mean - less chance of an accident? Again, we have self-serving groups writing leading questions with a motive, asking questions to people who have been "educated" by previous advertising campaigns. Where is the independant pollsters writing the questions? Where is the segmentation by registered boaters (not voters). We continue going down the "feel good" route - let some people force others to change behavior so they can "feel safer" without actually being safer - and at the same time, reduce the civil liberties of safe boaters. The times, they are a'changing.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:38 AM   #12
lakeluver
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Rentals

Sam,
I agree with you. Rental boats are generally too small for the big lake on a busy weekend due to lake traffic, not speed. A small rental boat out in the broads is not going to be fun, especially if there is wind and there are wakes.They have not taken any real boater safety trailing and are pretty
clueless.
How many times have we all had rental boats come way too close, only to have the renters wave happily at us as though they don't know they are doing something wrong?
lakeluver is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 11:11 AM   #13
winnilaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
Hey WinniLaker, let's not be picking on tractor-trailer 18 wheel trucks. Everything in this country got there on a big truck and truck drivers are held to higher driving safety standards than cars. Just ask you local police dept if they hold the big trucks to higher standards.

One large reason why there is now a nation wide shortage of CDL-A truck drivers is because it is a very difficult state license test to pass. About seven out of eight flunk it.

A simple and straight-ahead question it is. "Do you think NH lakes will be safer with a 45-25 speed limit?"

In case you forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat!
I wasn't picking on Tractor Trailers drivers, I was making a point, that the general public might not know the HIGH standards you speak, want me to point to a story where a tractor trailer KILLED 7 kids in a minivan that had stopped for bus to unload, ages 13 months to 15 years old. Never mind I just will (http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/natio...sh_x.htm?csp=1) As for 45 being hardly a slow speed, maybe in your boat, but my boat does 55 mph, I'm perfectly comfortable going 55 mph in my boat with my kids in the boat.

Last edited by winnilaker; 02-17-2006 at 11:49 AM.
winnilaker is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 11:58 AM   #14
Weirs guy
Senior Member
 
Weirs guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I hate to chime in again on this as I don't own a boat, but I do view a speed limit as a limit on personal freedoms (like helmet and seatbelt laws).

Having said that, I think if we want a poll that really means something, why not a poll of users on this site who know someone who was involved in an boating accident that was caused by either:
a. excessive speed by a sober operator
b. lack of skills/training in boat operation by a sober operator
c. alcohol

And compare the results of these 3 issues.
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet?

Now?
Weirs guy is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 12:20 PM   #15
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

This poll result was reported on Channel 9 News at 5 o'clock last night....interesting.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 12:36 PM   #16
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

That WAS interesting,KC.......they published the poll results and three people spoke for the bill.....they didn't have a single voice from the other side.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 01:31 PM   #17
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
That WAS interesting,KC.......they published the poll results and three people spoke for the bill.....they didn't have a single voice from the other side.
Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 01:45 PM   #18
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
Default What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.
I am sorry, but if you think the opposition has pretty much given up, then you are going to be sorely disappointed next Friday.

And can you give your source for your statement that a majority of Senators are on board with HB162?
chipj29 is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 01:48 PM   #19
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
And can you give your source for your statement that a majority of Senators are on board with HB162?
I'd really like to hear your response to that as well.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 01:58 PM   #20
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
Its nice to see that we agree on something. Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.
This boat would have some Lake (BI) residents shaking in their shoes, even with HB162 protecting them.

Read the specs for the Panther 80 (as in 80 feet with a cruising speed of 42 knots - just right for HB162):
http://www.baiayacht.it/


Last edited by GWC...; 02-17-2006 at 06:32 PM.
GWC... is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 02:01 PM   #21
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Here's my take on the poll results. There are roughly 100,000 boats registered in NH. Let's be generous and say that 80% of those boats are owned by NH residents. I think there are around 800,000 registered voters so, to make the math easier (for me), I'll assume that 1 in 10 voters own a boat.

If I didn't boat, and knew nothing about boating laws, boater education, enforecement, etc., I'd probably say why not to speed limits, we have them on the roads (not realizing that there are great differences bewteen cars and boats - line of sight, operating 5 feet away from another vehicle, etc.).

Basically, I'd bet that the majority of people being polled have not educated themselves on the issue, and if they don't boat, I can understand that.

That being said, I'm not surprised by the results. I think our senate will apply more stringent standards and a more deeper understanding of the issue when they review HB162. That's why we elected them.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 02:18 PM   #22
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

I bet 84% of voter in NH once believed in Santa Claus too. Almost half of the residents of NH have below average intelligence; why does anyone really care what voters believe? Don't we (poorly) pay lawmakers to make decisions like this based on logic rather than emotions? I gotta go talk to my Senator, Jack Barnes and see what he thinks about all this. He's a pretty smart guy.

That poll is just hype. Both sides are guilty of hype though...

I think peoiple will continue to kill and die with some regularity while doing dumb things on the lake regardless of the outcome of the law.
Dave R is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 04:38 PM   #23
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R
I bet 84% of voter in NH once believed in Santa Claus too. Almost half of the residents of NH have below average intelligence; why does anyone really care what voters believe? Don't we (poorly) pay lawmakers to make decisions like this based on logic rather than emotions? I gotta go talk to my Senator, Jack Barnes and see what he thinks about all this. He's a pretty smart guy.

That poll is just hype. Both sides are guilty of hype though...

I think peoiple will continue to kill and die with some regularity while doing dumb things on the lake regardless of the outcome of the law.
As a NH resident and native, I'm very offended by your entire post.

New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters.

1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 06:22 PM   #24
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default Part of the bill is all we need

HB162 should be limited to only the first paragraph:

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

Island Lover, when you say "Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.", I suggest you really be saying "Yes the lakes will FEEL safer with a 45/25 speed limit." Nice feelings is all you are going to get out of the law - feelings at the cost of civil liberty. It is a very steep price!
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 02-17-2006, 10:19 PM   #25
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Lakegeezer

Why don't you go back up about 15 posts and read where winnilaker admits the lake will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit. Then you can argue with him!
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 08:57 AM   #26
overlook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gilford
Posts: 57
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

He was only agreeing with the results, do not spin it. The results would be considerably different if the poll was conducted with only boaters or registered boat ownwers.

Boat Safe, Boat Smart- no HB162
overlook is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 09:47 AM   #27
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by overlook
He was only agreeing with the results, do not spin it. The results would be considerably different if the poll was conducted with only boaters or registered boat ownwers.

Boat Safe, Boat Smart- no HB162
There was no spin at all in my comment. Here is the poll question...

"Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided"

And this is winnilakers responce...

"I agree with the poll results based on the question."


I find his answer refreshingly honest.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 10:31 AM   #28
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
There was no spin at all in my comment. Here is the poll question...

"Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided"

And this is winnilakers responce...

"I agree with the poll results based on the question."


I find his answer refreshingly honest.

Wrong again, you took one sentence of his response, used it out of context to portray him in a way that is false. More proof of what you have been doing.

I wish I could say you have been "refreshingly honest" but I can't because doing things like this is not honest.

Pay attention sentators.
ITD is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 12:44 PM   #29
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
As a NH resident and native, I'm very offended by your entire post.

New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters.

1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit.

[/B]."
Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.

I like to canoe, a lot.

I live in NH, and have for 37 of my 40 years.
Dave R is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 01:03 PM   #30
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R
Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.
I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

Last edited by Evenstar; 02-18-2006 at 05:18 PM.
Evenstar is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 06:39 PM   #31
sum-r breeze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH
Posts: 396
Thanks: 155
Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts
Exclamation Franklin Said......

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!

Regards, The breeze
make sure to wave because I'll wave back
sum-r breeze is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 08:40 PM   #32
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD
Wrong again, you took one sentence of his response, used it out of context to portray him in a way that is false. More proof of what you have been doing.

I wish I could say you have been "refreshingly honest" but I can't because doing things like this is not honest.

Pay attention sentators.
ITD

I went back up to the post in question and checked. She did not take "one sentence" she took a whole paragraph. More importantly I took winnilakers comment to mean exactly what it said. It was not taken out of context in my opinion.

I think you are getting a little carried away here. I know you want this speed limit to fail, but this is not the way to go about it.

Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 09:46 PM   #33
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
ITD

I went back up to the post in question and checked. She did not take "one sentence" she took a whole paragraph. More importantly I took winnilakers comment to mean exactly what it said. It was not taken out of context in my opinion.

I think you are getting a little carried away here. I know you want this speed limit to fail, but this is not the way to go about it.

Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.
Bear Lover,

I don't see a whole paragraph, I see one line of winnilaker's and a repeat of the poll question. I suggest you look at IL's post again, you're mistaken, or was it a mistake?

There is one sentence used out of a post containing nine lines. The line used without the benefit of the other 8 lines can be interpreted differently then when used with Winnilaker's complete post.

What's important is accuracy and honesty, keep things in context.

Finally, I don't need to PM Winnilaker, it's very clear from his post what he meant.
ITD is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 09:59 PM   #34
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Arrow Essentially wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by sum-r breeze
I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!
What Franklin said was, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Five tons of boat operating at unreasonable speeds among lesser boaters doesn't strike me as an essential liberty.

(But that's just me).
ApS is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 10:01 PM   #35
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question What about the liberty of others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sum-r breeze
I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither!
So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

Last edited by Evenstar; 02-18-2006 at 11:27 PM.
Evenstar is offline  
Old 02-18-2006, 11:34 PM   #36
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD
Bear Lover,

I don't see a whole paragraph, I see one line of winnilaker's and a repeat of the poll question. I suggest you look at IL's post again, you're mistaken, or was it a mistake?

There is one sentence used out of a post containing nine lines. The line used without the benefit of the other 8 lines can be interpreted differently then when used with Winnilaker's complete post.

What's important is accuracy and honesty, keep things in context.

Finally, I don't need to PM Winnilaker, it's very clear from his post what he meant.
I understand EXACTLY what winnilaker is saying. His meaning is obvious, you are misinterpreting. Winnilaker asks...

Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer?

The obvious answer is YES

Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer?

The obvious answer is YES

Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer?

Again this is a YES

I agree with the poll results based on the question.

This is another YES

He is pointing out that there is more to the enactment of a law than just a statistical improvement in safety. Otherwise we would all be driving around in Volvos at 5 mph.
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 02-19-2006, 08:27 AM   #37
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."
OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 02-19-2006, 08:38 AM   #38
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.
I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.

Showing the results of popular polls on subjects sach as this tends to push the assumption that voters should decide the laws. Problem is, what's popular isn't always right. Britney Spears is popular... I think I'd rather have wizened folks making laws based on logic. If the wize people do a poor job, they can be fired easily enough.

The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.
Dave R is offline  
Old 02-19-2006, 08:55 AM   #39
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool Who's Intruding on Whom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear
Who's intruding? Check out the definition of intrude (your word of choice):
1.) thrust oneself in as if by force
2.) enter uninvited
3.) enter unlawfully on someone's property

Since human power boats were on the lake first, who actually intruded?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 02-19-2006, 09:27 AM   #40
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R
I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.
Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".

Quote:
The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.
The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 02-19-2006, 10:40 AM   #41
winnilaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default OK, enough guessing what I meant! Nice try to make it sound like I support HB162

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.

No need to PM me. My point was, that given the question and the people that probably answered, you can see how they got those results. But I don't find the results relevant.

If a random survey called me and asked me:

Would our roadways be safer is we prevented people over 70 from driving. I would answer YES. And I bet a high percentage would as well.

However, what's the reality of passing a bill that terminate the rights of people over 70 from driving. I think many would call that discriminatory, why, because there are many responsible drivers over 70. And there are actually statistics that show the elderly are the #2 demographic that causes accidents behind teenagers.

And the same goes with my Tractor Trailer driver question.

So for the record, I don't suppport HB162, I don't think the poll holds the weight supporters feel it should and I don't think the results of such a law justifies the reasoning for it.
winnilaker is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 08:18 AM   #42
Weirs guy
Senior Member
 
Weirs guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

So, nobody wanted to take my poll I see. What, are the supporters afraid of the outcome? Lets try this, as a "below average intelligence" NH voter, maybe someone can explain to me exactly how the speed limit will make me safer should I venture out on the lake in a boat. Am I less likely to be slammed into by another boat? Will the water be less choppy by reducing speeds? I guess I just don’t get it.
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet?

Now?
Weirs guy is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 10:25 AM   #43
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default The culture of fear

An interesting article came across my desk, and while reading it, I sensed a strong parallel between the culture shift in the US and the fear induced speed limit law project we have been following. Its a bit off-topic, and a bit 'heady', but a good read never the less and puts things in perspective.
Title: Culture of Fear: Dealing with cultural panic attacks by Ronald Bailey

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021706.shtml
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 06:23 PM   #44
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer
An interesting article came across my desk, and while reading it, I sensed a strong parallel between the culture shift in the US and the fear induced speed limit law project we have been following. Its a bit off-topic, and a bit 'heady', but a good read never the less and puts things in perspective.
Title: Culture of Fear: Dealing with cultural panic attacks by Ronald Bailey

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021706.shtml
Good find. Doubt it'll change anyone's mind though.
Dave R is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 07:03 PM   #45
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".


The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.
I guess the truth hurts. My "insulting comments" were entirely true. I'm also a NH resident and I don't want the opinions of NH residents to cloud the judgent of my elected leaders. Public opinion is a silly method to set a speed limit, or enact any other safety regulation. One should really pay attention to physics and statistics in this sort of calculation, not opinion polls. Would you prefer the general public decide things like construction, plumbing, fire prevention and wiring requirements or would you rather have an expert do so?

Are you unable or unwilling to use your kayak on the lake due to the presence of boats going more than 45 MPH? If so, the problem may be your own. I see lots of kayaks out there with fast boats alos present and everyone appears to be having fun. I don't think you've lots any rights at all.

Proponents for this law seem to forget that it's considered bad form, at the least, (and is quite likely already against the law) to actually hit another boat, regardless of speed. Most boaters avoid hitting other boaters. Statistically, you are really quite unlikley to get run over by a power boat out there and are much more likely to die from something like an act of God or bad judgement.
Dave R is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 07:53 PM   #46
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
Exclamation Any "boat" can be unsafe!

From today's Manchester Union Leader:

Fatal Ice Boat Collision, Lake Sunapee
Skip is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 07:59 PM   #47
sum-r breeze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH
Posts: 396
Thanks: 155
Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts
Cool Not Safer

Weis Guy,
The Lake will not be safer. I know the size my wake at slow speed (before getting on plane) and the size it is after getting on plane. Big difference.
If this bill passes we should all go PLOWING around the Lake at 15mph and show the elite liberals the trouble they caused.You won't be able to ge out on that water in any thing less than a 28footer. Just a protesting thought....
Anyone been within a 1/4 mile of the Mail Boats? The size of that wake is downright dangerous! Getting back to my Quote from Franklin.... I think it's an Essential Liberty to be left alone when out on the water! Keep all your restrictive laws to yourself and leave us alone!!!! We go out on the water to get away from all that nonsense

All the Best,
The breeze
Make sure to wave cause I'll Wave Back
sum-r breeze is offline  
Old 02-20-2006, 08:14 PM   #48
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default ...nobody knows....nobody!

Oh, nobody knows how our 24 Senators will vote.
Nobody knows, not even the Senators themselves.

One day, they wake up and think about that marina campaign contribution that they got last election.

Another day, they wake up and think about Lake Winnipesaukee and its speedy reputation and whether that's good or bad for the tourist biz of the state.

Another day they wake up and remember that boat ride in a constituant's big fast boat and what fun that was.

Another day they wake up and feel bad for all the smaller boats getting bullied by the big bad go fast-be loud boats.

Another day, they wake up and say to themselves "I wonder what I think today, who knows?"

24 Senators: 16 Repubs w/ one lady Senator, 8 Dems w/ 4 lady Senators and it is just too close to call. A vote taken today would probably be different than a vote taken on the next day. Even if the Transportation Committee recommends one way, the overall Senate is not bound by that and could vote the other way.

So, n-o-b-o-d-y k-n-o-w-s.........
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 02-21-2006, 01:34 PM   #49
John A. Birdsall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

You know I have heard complaints about kayakers and the speed limit. Perhaps if you would paddle half as fast as Willie Coyete runs, then you too could go 45 mph.
John A. Birdsall is offline  
Old 02-21-2006, 09:18 PM   #50
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,345
Thanks: 206
Thanked 759 Times in 443 Posts
Default Equal rights? For who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
Who's intruding?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.
Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 02-21-2006, 09:27 PM   #51
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671
Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.
Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe
In those infamaous words of "Captain Ron" , "If somethings going to go wrong , it will go wrong out there".
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 08:43 AM   #52
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.
From the Union Leader..."Among those registering at the hearing yesterday, 150 opposed the bill and 59 favored it."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-2958d5d7d427
chipj29 is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 08:54 AM   #53
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe
What's missing in this picture below?

Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake


Last edited by GWC...; 02-26-2006 at 04:59 PM.
GWC... is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 09:47 AM   #54
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

I do admit,that as a NH native,that I am below average intelligence.But,somehow it annoys me when people that do not live here profess to know more about how to run our state than we do.
Vermont is a good example of a state that was overun with well meaning tourists from NY,Conn. and Mass. Now you can't even mow your lawn there without a permit.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 06:22 AM   #55
RegalStan2450
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

The uneducated boater is a much greater threat to kayakers and canoes than a 100 mph educated boater. I passed plenty of canoes and kayakers last year. I always slow down, keep my distance and wave a friendly hello just like most other boaters do.

If this was really about safety I think the people in favor of HB 162 would be pushing for eveyone who registers a boat in NH or rents one , to have a boating certificate. You should not be able to register your boat without first having a certificate..

This would make the lakes instantly safer and cost almost nothing compared to a useless speed limit. The uneducated boater is the danger on our lakes not speed. This bill does nothing to address safety IMO.
RegalStan2450 is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 06:53 AM   #56
RegalStan2450
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

About the poll results. When HB 162 was first brought up I too thought it was a good idea. A speed limit should make things safer right? If I was polled then I would have answered yes to HB 162.
I then started reading and slowly realized this bill puts too many restriction out there with very little results. I just don't believe it is about safety anymore. Poll 600 people in NH with boating certificates instead. The people polled should be educated boaters or I would call it a bogus poll.

My wife has been listening to me talk about this. Yesterday she finally said "Maybe the speed limit will make the lake safer hun".

I got on my soap box First I asked"We have been boating for over 10 years. Have we ever had an incident with a fast boat?" Her answer"no". "Have we ever had an experience with a uneducated boater?" Her answer "yes several times" . With one very close call.

Finally I asked" Do you think a educated boater with a fast boat should be limited to 45 mph on a huge empty lake during the middle of the week?" "of course not" she said. I told her that this law would make that happen. She felt that was totally wrong and why can't they just have a weekend and holiday speed limit , like alot of NH lakes do.

She realized this was an incredible infringement on our NH liberties even though our boat barely goes 50mph.

I would even agree with a weekend speed limit because that is a compromise at least(and I only go boating on weekends).It seems there is no compromise though, If the proponents really want safer lakes they should push for stricter boater education IMO. Again this bill does nothing for safety on our lakes IMO.
RegalStan2450 is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 03:58 PM   #57
Lakewinniboater
Senior Member
 
Lakewinniboater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Westford, MA and Alton Bay, NH
Posts: 225
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Don't twist polls or words

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided
NOT ALL VOTERS were polled first of all. Educate yourself on how polls are done and how things are worded.
__________________
Wendy
"Wasn't Me!"
Lakewinniboater is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 11:39 AM   #58
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool And your point is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
What's missing in this picture below?
Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake
GWC: I don't see any fish in your picture either, so does that also mean that there are no fish in Winni?

I fail to see your point, and don't enjoy being laughed at, just because I prefer kayaks over powerboats. And I have actually kayaked on lakes in larger waves than what your picture shows. I've also done Class III white water.

Notice how the waves in your photo are biggest closer to the shore (breakers), which is why hugging the shore is not always the best thing to do.

Here's a typical sea kayak shot, to give you a better idea of what sea kayaks are actually made for:
Attached Images
 
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 12:29 PM   #59
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

I think there is plenty of room on Lake Winnipesaukee for everybody.

However, the only boating related fatality we had last year was the darwin award contender who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking during the flooding in Alstead.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 05:37 PM   #60
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
I think there is plenty of room on Lake Winnipesaukee for everybody.

However, the only boating related fatality we had last year was the darwin award contender who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking during the flooding in Alstead.
Exactly what does your comment about kayaking in a flood have to do with making NH lakes safer? You guys should really be focusing on the topic of this thread rather than picking on kayakers.

You'll notice that the sea kayakers in my photo are wearing PFDs.

And, as I posted earlier, from the years 1996 though 2002, only 1% of fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks involved sea kayaks.

(from: CRITICAL JUDGMENT II - Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities 1996-2002 by the American Canoe Association)
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

Last edited by Evenstar; 03-02-2006 at 10:37 PM.
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 09:08 AM   #61
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Evenstar...

It really doesn't matter to me what type of kayak you happen to use. So your sea kayak is the GFBL of kayaks? So what? It is still a kayak, and it still has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat. In any case, I was pointing out the flawed judgement that kayaker used. In fact when I was pulling my boat out of the water in December I witnessed 2 people in a sea kayaks go out for a paddle... no PFD, just a dry suit! On a snowy December day! Yet another case of poor judgment. The MP had closed Glendale at that point, if something bad happened they were out of luck. Statistically you are more likely die in a kayak or a canoe than you are on any other type of craft.

You want to restrict my personal freedoms yet you want no restrictions on your personal freedom! You already have access to every public body of water in the State of NH, and thats not good enough for you. You want to limit my personal freedom not because you can't kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee, but just because YOU want to feel safe. How is that fair? Especially when all of the statistics point to Lake Winnipesaukee being a VERY SAFE place for all to enjoy.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 10:47 AM   #62
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Evenstar...It really doesn't matter to me what type of kayak you happen to use. So your sea kayak is the GFBL of kayaks? So what? It is still a kayak, and it still has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat.
I’ve explained over and over the difference between a sea kayak and a recreational kayak – if you still don’t get it, that’s not my fault. Your statement is like saying that any boat with a motor is equally safe out in the middle of the lake, in all conditions. The fact is that sea kayaks are much safer on large lakes than recreation kayaks, mostly because they are designed for large bodies of water.


GFBL kayak??? 5 to 6 mph is fast? And my kayak is hardly loud!

Where’s the data to back up your statement that a sea kayak “has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat”? The USCG data gives that there were 98 “canoe/kayak” fatalities in 2004. If sea kayakers are only 1% of all canoe/kayak fatalities, then that’s only 1 person. So are you saying that no one died in a hi-performance boat in 2004?

Quote:
In any case, I was pointing out the flawed judgement that kayaker used. In fact when I was pulling my boat out of the water in December I witnessed 2 people in a sea kayaks go out for a paddle... no PFD, just a dry suit! On a snowy December day! Yet another case of poor judgment. The MP had closed Glendale at that point, if something bad happened they were out of luck.

Again that person was not on a NH lake, so that doesn’t belong in this thread. Are you suggesting that no one in a hi-performance boat has ever made a mistake, or suffered from “flawed judgment”?

Are you positive that those drysuits were not PFD rated? Some are – some are inflatable. Or that they weren’t being worn over a PFD, as some people prefer? Whatever, I never said that every sea kayaker always makes the best decisions.

Quote:
Statistically you are more likely die in a kayak or a canoe than you are on any other type of craft.
But this tread is about safety on NH lakes, so can you show me some real data to back that statement up, as it applies to NH lakes. How many canoe and kayak fatalities occurred only on NH lakes? How many canoes and kayaks uses are in NH? And what are the paddling hours per year for these paddlers on NH lakes?
Quote:
You want to restrict my personal freedoms yet you want no restrictions on your personal freedom! You already have access to every public body of water in the State of NH, and thats not good enough for you. You want to limit my personal freedom not because you can't kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee, but just because YOU want to feel safe. How is that fair? Especially when all of the statistics point to Lake Winnipesaukee being a VERY SAFE place for all to enjoy.
I’m supporting a bill that would require you to slow down. Personally I don’t feel that you or anyone else has the right to put others in danger, just because you enjoy going fast. Most hi-performance boaters are not willing to admit it, but there is a relationship between higher speeds and the number of vessel collisions. So there is some documented basis for my fear.
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/OUTDOOR/60203002
[Source: Telegraph analysis of Coast Guard Recreational Boat Accidents Database, 1999-2004]
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

Last edited by Evenstar; 03-04-2006 at 08:39 AM.
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 02:45 PM   #63
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
{snip}

Most hi-performance boaters are not willing to admit it, but there is a relationship between higher speeds and the number of vessel collisions. So there is some documented basis for my fear.
Evenstar, this just isn't true, think about it if it were then there would be many more accidents on high speed highways than city streets. The documentation you show is one man's opinion and I think it is a misstatement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/OUTDOOR/60203002
[Source: Telegraph analysis of Coast Guard Recreational Boat Accidents Database, 1999-2004]
Once again how does this prove the need for a speed limit, it doesn't. Excessive speed quoted above could be speed well below the speed limit. The number of accidents on Winni. needs to be looked at in relationship to the number of boats and time the boats are used. If I were you, looking at the data the way you seem to look at it, I would not kayak on Winni. even with the speed limit.....
ITD is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:47 PM   #64
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,125
Thanks: 198
Thanked 417 Times in 237 Posts
Default Raw numbers without context are meaningless

If you consider the safe passage law, by definition, any boats that collide at speeds greater than 6 MPH are using "excessive" speed. Some of the Coast Guard stats that break this down into more detail show that speeds in excess of 40 MPH are responsible for very few accidents and deaths compared to accidents and deaths occuring at speeds below 40 MPH. Why? Probably because there are a LOT of people traveling at slow speeds and few traveling at 40 plus. What does this mean? To me, it means that there are no clear statistics that show high speed is a major contributor to boating accidents on NH lakes. In general, the statistics that are available indicate that high speed is not a disproportionate contributor to accidents and fatalities. Would more detailed information show a disproportionate high speed link to accidents? Personally I don't believe it would but the reality is that we do not have this information.

As to the number of accidents on Winni, there are many factors that must be considered to place these numbers in context. For example, Winni is about 10 times larger than Winnisquam. If you multiply Winnisquam's 28 accidents by 10 you get 280, significantly more per acre than Winni (222). You would also need to ask how many boats are using these lakes. Because of the variety of entertainments availble on Winni I would guess that many more boats are in use on Winni than on other NH lakes. I have 0 boating accidents in my swimming pool. Does that allow me to compare it to Winni in terms of safety? A meaningful statistic would be the number of accidents per boating hour in use. I don't think we'll get that since boaters don't clock in and out when using their boats. I would like to get better information so that we can make informed choices in the future. IS education working? Are boaters aware of the current laws on the lake? Are people getting into accidents new boaters? new to the lake?

The clear statistics that ARE available show that with increasing boat registrations in NH the number of reported accidents are decreasing. That is surely a good thing. However, no one disputes that the lake is more congested, especially on some summer weekends. This congestion amplifies any problems that may have already been happening. People are ruder when crammed together and stupid behavior seems to peak when people become impatient. These are real problems that we need to think about, and they can be hard to fix. People need to be made aware of the problems and taught how to avoid them and we need tough enforcement of existing laws to reign in the boneheads.
jeffk is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 10:45 AM   #65
Arby
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Speed Limit on lakes

I have been boating on Lake Winnipesaukee since 1976, and in those years have seen many foolish and dangerous acts committed by boaters. In my opinion, the question regarding the speed limit SHOULD BE: "What do you think the best method would be to increase safety of boaters on the lakes?"
I believe the answer to this is required safe boating programs. In my 30 years of boating on the lake, ALL of the dangerous acts that I have witnessed have one thing in common - ignorance of the rules of the "road" and ignorance regarding the operation of a vessel. Lowering the maximun speed on the lake, will not make the boaters any safer. I have yet to witness any dangerous acts which were speed related. (If you are curious - I do NOT have a performance boat.)
In closing, I truly hope this law does not pass because it will adversely affect the boating enjoyment and many of the lakeside businesses around the lake.
Arby is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 12:10 PM   #66
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
if you still don’t get it, that’s not my fault.

Whatever, I never said that every sea kayaker always makes the best decisions.

So there is some documented basis for my fear.
Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

http://www.orionsignals.com/Marine/P...d-signals.html


P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...

GWC... is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 01:08 PM   #67
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar:
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...TDOOR/60203002
That's interesting, but what you quoted was a sidebox from the article. As you well know the article contained the following two paragraphs:
Quote:
Operator inexperience and inattention easily swamp speeding as a cause of accidents in the state, according to a Telegraph review of the Coast Guard’s Recreational Boating Accident Database for 1999-2004. Inexperience and inattention were blamed for 120 accidents; hazardous waters, 55 accidents; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35, and the weather, 28.

Boating accidents with injury or serious property damage declined by 68 percent from 1999-2004 in New Hampshire, the records show. The state began mandatory boater education in 2002. Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years. Deaths also declined, from six in 1999 to only two in 2004, the latest year available.
and by this quote that you made:
Quote:
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe!
You totally ignore the fact the boating accidents have declined by 68 percent since 1999, going from a high of 109 in 1999 to 35 in 2004. Every year there was a Decrease in the number of accidents. That fact was also included in the article that you quote but chose to ignore in your post:
Quote:
The number of reported accidents fell from 109 in 1999 to 94 in 2000, 74 in 2001, 68 in 2002 when mandatory boater education began, 49 in 2003, and 35 in 2004. That’s a decline of 68 percent over five years.
So how does that compare to the rest of the nation? Well the next paragraph in the article that you forgot to quote gives us a clue!
Quote:
Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years, from 7,931 in 1999 to 4,904 in 2004.
You might also note that WEATHER is blamed for nearly as many accidents as excessive speed....so, no boating in bad weather!!!!

So, to recap. Boating accidents since 1999 have DECREASED by 68%. BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING! So let it work!!!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 01:15 PM   #68
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...
If you're going to quote me, please keep my quotes in the context that I wrote them. You are twisting what I actually wrote.

FYI: I made that thrill comment ONCE. In this post: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26984&postcount=3
My comment was in response to Cal’s comment: “... If you find the little safe ponds and streams so boring , you must LIKE the thrill that comes with the big lake. So now you wish to make it boring too?”
My reply was: “Speeding boats do not make a lake more exciting for kayaks - We count on Mother Nature to do that.”


I don’t see any power boats in your photo either.

You guys act like I’m some kind of irresponsible thrill junkie – just because I made one comment about Mother Nature providing enough thrills for us sea kayakers. I don’t go out in conditions that are beyond what I can handle and I do turn back when conditions start to get a bit too challenging. Did I ever say that Winni, or any other large lakes were NEVER too rough for me? All I’ve said is that sea kayaks are made for large bodies of water, so they (with an experienced paddler) are safe to use in much rougher conditions than what open canoes and recreational kayaks would be safe in.

See my post on whistles (and air horns): http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28538&postcount=57

If a boat is going too fast to see me – it’s likely too noisy for the operator to hear an air horn – assuming that I even have time to use one. Besides, it does take both hands to paddle a kayak.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 03:10 PM   #69
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

http://www.orionsignals.com/Marine/P...d-signals.html


P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...

GWC..there are MANY on this forum who express their opinions/ideas and espcially about this certain topic. There are certain posts I don't even bother to read just because of the name of the poster and their long winded, boring rhetoric. To single out Evenstar and tell him to concentrate on being heard in the lake and NOT on this forum is so ignorant!! Why would you post such a thing. Evenstar has just as much right to post and be "heard" as the next person as long as he's posting within the rules set up by the moderator. I can't understand why you would single him out like that. The avatar at the end of the face winking doesn't excuse you either. Sorry for the rant I just feel that was so mean spirited!!
KonaChick is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 05:38 PM   #70
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Smile Thanks!

Thanks Konachick, I really appreciate your post!

But I just wanted to point out that I'm a she.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 08:22 AM   #71
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
Thanks Konachick, I really appreciate your post!

But I just wanted to point out that I'm a she.


My face is red I must admit...I'm feeling dumb, a real big twit..Evenstar is a woman no doubt...I'll say it from the hilltops, I'll even shout!! Sorry Ms. Evenstar!
KonaChick is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 09:04 AM   #72
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Evenstar...

My comment as to your kayak being the GFBL of kayaks was in reference to the statement you made about sea kayaks being a high performance version (longer, & faster & generally more seaworthy) than a regular kayak. It wasn't meant to be a slam in any way. Sorry if you didn't get it.

What most people seem to forget when discussing speed on the water is VISIBILITY. In most instances on Lake Winnipesaukee visibility is 360 degrees and measured in MILES! Not hundreds of feet. A prime example is that you can see FL4 from FL3. The distance between the two is approximately 2.25 miles. A boat traveling at 45 MPH is covering 66 FPS. A boat traveling at 70MPH is covering 103 FPS. Its only traveling 37 FPS faster than a boat traveling 45 MPH. When you can see objects 1+ miles away, there is plenty of time to correct your course to avoid a collision.

Your other point, as to the 222 boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee over a 4 year period needs some clarification. Given the amount of people who are using the Lake, 222 accidents over a 4 year period is pretty low. Especially when you consider how many of the 222 accidents were related to excessive speed.... 35! So in 4 years of data collection, thousands and thousands of boats using Lake Winnipesaukee and the accident rate for excessive speed is 35! I wonder how many of those 35 accidents were at speeds over 45MPH during the day or 25MPH at night? I would also like to know how many were collisions with other boats or watercraft?

If Fear is the issue, and you fear getting run over by a boat, the statistic I would be most concerned with is collisions. Where are the collision accident stats for Lake Winnipesaukee or NH that justify that fear?

I really don't think an airhorn is all that attention grabbing... but for some strange reason a couple of short sharp blast on a police whislte seems to quickly gather a persons attention!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 02:18 PM   #73
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool NH's statistics aren't very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Evenstar...
What most people seem to forget when discussing speed on the water is VISIBILITY. In most instances on Lake Winnipesaukee visibility is 360 degrees and measured in MILES! Not hundreds of feet. ... A boat traveling at 45 MPH is covering 66 FPS. A boat traveling at 70MPH is covering 103 FPS. Its only traveling 37 FPS faster than a boat traveling 45 MPH. When you can see objects 1+ miles away, there is plenty of time to correct your course to avoid a collision.
But visibility IS an issue when high speed boaters don’t see smaller boats. Several on this forum have admitted that they have trouble spotting kayaks on the lake. I’ve had some powerboats come closer than they should have, because they obviously didn’t see me sooner. This has only happened with fast moving powerboats. So apparently there is a connection between the speed of the boat and the operator’s ability to see smaller vessels. That’s one of my main concerns.

The 150 foot rule does me no good at all when a vessel is traveling fast and the operator doesn’t see me. That ADDITIONAL 37 FPS could very well be the difference between my kayak being hit or not.

Quote:
Your other point, as to the 222 boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee over a 4 year period needs some clarification. Given the amount of people who are using the Lake, 222 accidents over a 4 year period is pretty low.
First of all, there were a lot more than 222 boating accidents on Winn during that time period. Those are just the 222 accidents that were recorded. If there’s less than $2000 damage, and injuries that don’t require more than first aid treatment, the accident isn’t part of the USCG accident statistics.

But 222 for a single lake in a 4 year period is still a great deal of accidents! According to the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics, during the 5 year period (2000-2004) the entire state of Massachusetts had 266 boating accidents, the entire state of Maine had 286 accidents, and the entire state of Vermont had 28 accidents.

The other thing is that I am entitled to my opinion – even when it is different than yours. My statement was, “I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place.” If you’re in a large powerboat, you might consider Winni to be safe – but try to see it from my perspective – my kayak is only 23 inches wide and I’m actually sitting below the waterline. Since I’m much more vulnerable than you are, isn’t it likely that I might also feel less safe?

I think that the main reason that there aren’t more collisions on Winni is that there are relatively few paddlers on the lake (for a lake this size). And most of the paddlers stay in the coves or hug the shore - because they’re afraid of being run over by powerboats.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 05:34 PM   #74
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Question Flogging Will Continue Until Morale Improves—Department

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...You might also note that WEATHER is blamed for nearly as many accidents as excessive speed....so, no boating in bad weather!!!!"
Most accidents occur on bright, sunny days with calm water conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...So, to recap. Boating accidents since 1999 have DECREASED by 68%. BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING! So let it work!!!"
Check those numbers again.

1) Why did accidents drop by nearly half in 1996—then double?
2) Why were accidents so low in 2004?
3) Why were fatalities at a record low in 2004?
4) Why are other states with mandatory Boater Education seeing higher accident rates?

For New Hampshire in 1996 and 2004, the answer is...unprecedented rainfall in 1996, and a very soggy 2004 season! Nobody is going to drive up to Winnipesaukee and put their boat in the water if the forecast is for rain, rain, and more rain.

Boating accidents in nearby Connecticut and New Jersey have spiked.

Both states have required Boater Education much longer than New Hampshire. Their "education" programs are keeping accidents down, all right—but only when there's bad weather!!!

New Jersey went for a NEW!!!—AND—IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course this year when their accident rate went from 85 to 124.

It couldn't be their unlimited boating speeds, of course. (Last year's Barnegat Bay speed limit initiative in New Jersey got scuttled with help from the $peedboat industry lobbyist$).

The peaks and valleys associated with New Hampshire accident numbers are "statistically insignificant"; i.e., as a small state, we have too few numbers to determine a trend attributable to the educated boater. There is a closer correlation to clouds than to education!

The only trend your numbers support are the very same numbers that are decreasing across the country anyway.
ApS is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:31 AM   #75
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
But visibility IS an issue when high speed boaters don’t see smaller boats. Several on this forum have admitted that they have trouble spotting kayaks on the lake. I’ve had some powerboats come closer than they should have, because they obviously didn’t see me sooner. This has only happened with fast moving powerboats. So apparently there is a connection between the speed of the boat and the operator’s ability to see smaller vessels. That’s one of my main concerns.

The 150 foot rule does me no good at all when a vessel is traveling fast and the operator doesn’t see me. That ADDITIONAL 37 FPS could very well be the difference between my kayak being hit or not.
When you are sitting with your head no more than 3' above the water level, in the middle of the broads with waves all around, there is no way you can tell if a boat approaching you is doing 25MPH, 45MPH or 70MPH. It is physically impossible for you to tell if the boat is traveling an extra 37FPS. I have no doubt your a safe paddler, I think most kayakers are. The new flag requirement will help boaters see you, regardless of how fast the boat is traveling.

There should be no issues with visibility at all on Lake Winnipesaukee. Visibility is measured in miles. If the operator of the boat didn't see you it was because he wasn't paying attention, not because you weren't visible in your bright yellow kayak. While I have no doubt some bonehead has come too close to you on occasion, certainly well within your comfort zone, a speed limit is not going to affect that behavior.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
First of all, there were a lot more than 222 boating accidents on Winn during that time period. Those are just the 222 accidents that were recorded. If there’s less than $2000 damage, and injuries that don’t require more than first aid treatment, the accident isn’t part of the USCG accident statistics.

But 222 for a single lake in a 4 year period is still a great deal of accidents! According to the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics, during the 5 year period (2000-2004) the entire state of Massachusetts had 266 boating accidents, the entire state of Maine had 286 accidents, and the entire state of Vermont had 28 accidents.

The other thing is that I am entitled to my opinion – even when it is different than yours. My statement was, “I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place.” If you’re in a large powerboat, you might consider Winni to be safe – but try to see it from my perspective – my kayak is only 23 inches wide and I’m actually sitting below the waterline. Since I’m much more vulnerable than you are, isn’t it likely that I might also feel less safe?

I think that the main reason that there aren’t more collisions on Winni is that there are relatively few paddlers on the lake (for a lake this size). And most of the paddlers stay in the coves or hug the shore - because they’re afraid of being run over by powerboats.
I understand your vulnerablity and that the FEAR of being run over by a powerboat is very real for you. The FEAR however, is completely unfounded. Getting hit by a speeding boat in your kayak is of course possible, but its statistically highly unlikely. Statistically you have a better chance at getting in an automobile accident on your way to the boat launch. To your point that there may be other unreported accidents... I am sure there are a few. If the accident doesn't cause any personal injury, its not reportable. So if there were lots of people getting hurt we would know about it. Certainly if a kayaks and canoes were getting run over by powerboats people would be getting hurt and it would be documented.

The main reason there aren't more collisions between any of the different types of watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee is because of the 150' safe passage rule. To date there have been ZERO collisions between a speeding powerboat and a kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:42 AM   #76
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
.


{snip}

I understand your vulnerablity and that the FEAR of being run over by a powerboat is very real for you. The FEAR however, is completely unfounded. Getting hit by a speeding boat in your kayak is of course possible, but its statistically highly unlikely. Statistically you have a better chance at getting in an automobile accident on your way to the boat launch. To your point that there may be other unreported accidents... I am sure there are a few. If the accident doesn't cause any personal injury, its not reportable. So if there were lots of people getting hurt we would know about it. Certainly if a kayaks and canoes were getting run over by powerboats people would be getting hurt and it would be documented.

The main reason there aren't more collisions between any of the different types of watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee is because of the 150' safe passage rule. To date there have been ZERO collisions between a speeding powerboat and a kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Woodsy
Great post Woodsy, I just wanted to point out that statistically Evenstar should be much more afraid of drowning, that is if she believes ACTUAL statistics.
ITD is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 10:48 AM   #77
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
When you are sitting with your head no more than 3' above the water level, in the middle of the broads with waves all around, there is no way you can tell if a boat approaching you is doing 25MPH, 45MPH or 70MPH. It is physically impossible for you to tell if the boat is traveling an extra 37FPS. I have no doubt your a safe paddler, I think most kayakers are. The new flag requirement will help boaters see you, regardless of how fast the boat is traveling.
I can certainly tell the difference betweent 45 and 70mph, when a boat is reasonably close to me! But that isn't even my point. The faster the speed of other boats, the greater the chance of me being hit.

I've addressed the flag on sea kayaks problem before - flags make these kayaks very unsafe - especally in rough weather.
FYI: The type of flag mentioned in this bill is a distress flag - for emergency use. If this becomes law, I would need to have a distress flag OR a whistle (which I already use) with me.

You guys just love to skip over any facts that support our concerns, by trying to divert these post off in other directions.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

Last edited by Evenstar; 03-08-2006 at 05:22 PM.
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 11:16 AM   #78
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Actually Evenstar you are flat wrong on this. You cannot tell the approaching speed of a boat heading straight towards you on a Zero (0) bearing. Nodody can! Your only reference to boat speed would be the noise the boat is making.

The distance you are able to see within a 360 degree arc is also limited by the height of your head above the water and wave action. The higher your head above the surface of the water, the greater distance you can see. If your head is only 3' above the waters surface while kayaking and you are playing in 2' waves, your 360 degree visibility is extremely limited. On my boat, while standing in the bolsters, my head is approximately 10' above the surface of the water, allowing for much greater range of visibility. I think you can see concord from the bridge of some of those big cruisers!

A small flag similar to that of one used on a childs bicycle will not make your craft unstable. It will allow for much greater visibility, and the more visible you are, the safer you will be, regardless of boat speed.

I do agree with you that paddles are the most easily seen because they are in motion. The human eye is very sensitive to motion. Thats why a small (emphasis on small) triangular flag bobbing back & forth on a whip will greatly aid in visibility.

Your chances of getting run over while playing in the Broads are nil. Too much room and plenty of visibility. Your chances of getting run over in the Weirs increases exponentially as the number of boats increases and they are confined to a small area. You won't get run over by a boat going faster than 45 MPH in the Weirs... its just too congested.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 01:51 PM   #79
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Actually Evenstar you are flat wrong on this. You cannot tell the approaching speed of a boat heading straight towards you on a Zero (0) bearing.
A boat can be approching me, without being on a zero bearing - which is what I was talking about.

Two foot waves go up and down. My visibility is just fine in waves. If my visibility is so limited, how come I NEVER have trouble spotting other kayaks even when they are a mile or more away, yet many powerboaters say that they have trouble seeing us? I think that visibility is much more of an issue as speed increases - due to many factors.

Quote:
A small flag similar to that of one used on a childs bicycle will not make your craft unstable. It will allow for much greater visibility, and the more visible you are, the safer you will be, regardless of boat speed.
Well, you are "flat wrong" about this. I'd love to see someone try to roll a kayak that has a flag on a pole attached to it! Self rescues whould be nearly impossible to perform. Do you have any idea of what it's like to paddlle a 23" wide sea kayak in windy conditions? You control these boats by balance and by putting them on edge - which would be virtually impossible in any cross winds, if there was any kind of flag attached to a long pole, which is attached to the kayak. Don't you know anything about leverage? If you can't see my bright red kayak, or my 2 foot square red pfd, or the bright orange blades of my paddles, you're certainly not going to see a little flag. Even the blades of my paddles are bigger than the flag you mentioned.

Quote:
Your chances of getting run over while playing in the Broads are nil. Too much room and plenty of visibility.
So collisions have never happened in open areas of a large lake? Powerboats traveling at high speeds on an open lake have run into each other. How does that happen? One would think that they could spot each other miles away - yet these kinds of accidents still happen. Maybe powerboats should have large flags on a long pole attached to them.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:18 PM   #80
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
I've addressed the flag on sea kayaks problem before - flags make these kayaks very unsafe - especally in rough weather.
Does this mean that you are against using a small bicycle type flag on your kayak, even it would make you more visible and reduces the risk of not being seen and becoming a speed-bump?

For someone with as must fear as you profess to having with regards to boating on the Lake, you need to find a safer, more stable kayak that will afford you the luxury of being seen more readily by being able to display a small bicycle type flag on your kayak.

Perhaps something akin to what one sees in Hawaii being paddled, the boat with the outrigger for stability.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canoe-Stabilizer...ayphotohosting



Talk about stability and being seen:

http://www.sailboatstogo.com/catalog...gory=KAYAK_RIG



GFBL Kayak


Last edited by GWC...; 03-08-2006 at 03:06 PM.
GWC... is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 05:13 PM   #81
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
For someone with as must fear as you profess to having with regards to boating on the Lake, you need to find a safer, more stable kayak that will afford you the luxury of being seen more readily by being able to display a small bicycle type flag on your kayak.
You really have no clue do you? A sea kayak is the safest type of paddle boat for use on large bodies of water.

I have no fear of Winni - I'm afraid of the people who feel the need to go fast, at the expense of other boaters.

You're actually suggesting that I give up my preferred type of boating, just so you guys can continue to go as fast as you want?!!! And you complain that a speed limit would infringe on your boating rights? Give me a break!

If I wanted to sail, I would buy a sailboat! Then there's the little problem that hi-speed powerboats also run into sailboats. So how would I be any safer?

The obvious solution is to have you guys slow down, which is exactly what HB-162 is for.

Anyone who thinks that a little flag is going to keep kayakers safe from being run over should watch APS's video link: http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

How much of a chance would any kayaker have if they had been in the path of that speeding boat?
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 08:32 AM   #82
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
A boat can be approching me, without being on a zero bearing - which is what I was talking about.

Two foot waves go up and down. My visibility is just fine in waves. If my visibility is so limited, how come I NEVER have trouble spotting other kayaks even when they are a mile or more away, yet many powerboaters say that they have trouble seeing us? I think that visibility is much more of an issue as speed increases - due to many factors.


Well, you are "flat wrong" about this. I'd love to see someone try to roll a kayak that has a flag on a pole attached to it! Self rescues whould be nearly impossible to perform. Do you have any idea of what it's like to paddlle a 23" wide sea kayak in windy conditions? You control these boats by balance and by putting them on edge - which would be virtually impossible in any cross winds, if there was any kind of flag attached to a long pole, which is attached to the kayak. Don't you know anything about leverage? If you can't see my bright red kayak, or my 2 foot square red pfd, or the bright orange blades of my paddles, you're certainly not going to see a little flag. Even the blades of my paddles are bigger than the flag you mentioned.


So collisions have never happened in open areas of a large lake? Powerboats traveling at high speeds on an open lake have run into each other. How does that happen? One would think that they could spot each other miles away - yet these kinds of accidents still happen. Maybe powerboats should have large flags on a long pole attached to them.
EvenStar..

Do you understand the rules of navigation? That video has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with being an complete idiot! That speeding boat that you are so afraid of being run over by is a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boat, probably similar in layout to the one the MP have on Lake Winnipesaukee. It wasn't somebody driving a Hi-Performance boat! The helmsman at the controls of the USCG Patrol Boat was WRONG! I did not hear any siren or horn that indicated they were enroute to an emergency and thus be given the right of way. In this instance the Coast Guard boat was the give way vessel... he didn't yield right of way and the little boat got run over! He should have chopped his throttles and turned to starboard in order to miss the little boat. Of course on the Great Lakes where this occured there is no 150' Safe Passage Rule... so he could have missed the little boat by a few feet and all would be well and legal!

If the boat is not approaching you on a Zero bearing then its not going to collide with you. Your forward motion of 5-6MPH is pretty similar to the headway speed of any powered vessel and is pretty negligible. Its that simple. Speed is very difficult to judge on the water because you have no point of reference. Its not like a car where you have trees and signs etc to give you a point of reference.

I can concede your point on the flags. Rolling a kayak with a flag might add a bit of difficulty, but it will not be immpossible. Perhaps if they add a requirement that instead of a flag, you are required to have hunter orange paddle blades and wear a hunter orange PFD... would that work for you? Last year on the weekend after July 4th I witnessed 3 kayakers out at out at dusk in a dark green kayaks, black wetsuit tops and no lights... That is a recipe for disaster. I don't think all kayakers and other paddlers are that irresponsible.

I do understand your fear, and to you its real. But statistically you can safely enjoy your sport on the big lake without compromising another individuals personal freedom. Nobody has been run over in a kayak or canoe by a speeding boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! Boating accidents are down dramatically since the inception of a BSC requirement. To point, accidents are down 68%!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 09:27 AM   #83
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
"...Certainly if a kayaks and canoes were getting run over by powerboats people would be getting hurt and it would be documented. The main reason there aren't more collisions between any of the different types of watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee is because of the 150' safe passage rule. To date there have been ZERO collisions between a speeding powerboat and a kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Woodsy, you have repeatedly posted that no collisions have involved kayaks and speeding boats. Would you provide the source of that questionable item? Although an alert kayak has just the speed to avoid a collision, that would likely result in a non-ticketed violation of the 150-foot rule instead. (An unreported "close call").

Also, I recall WRKO-talk/radio reporting a Winnipesaukee kayaker that had been run over in 2003 and was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I reported that accident here at the forum. No further word as to his future prospects appeared. Perhaps a new forum member can elaborate on that collision. It's likely that collisions like his are not well reported—this being a tourist state, and all. (WRKO is a Boston station).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
"...There should be no issues with visibility at all on Lake Winnipesaukee. Visibility is measured in miles..."
Visibility is measured in miles at night, too. This lake's "loudest" crash occurred at night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
"...When you are sitting with your head no more than 3' above the water level, in the middle of the broads with waves all around, there is no way you can tell if a boat approaching you is doing 25MPH, 45MPH or 70MPH.
Using your own numbers (25MPH, 45MPH, 70MPH) would you care to guess what speed this guy's doin' in Winter Harbor—a favorite spot of skiers and tubers?
Attached Images
 
ApS is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 09:49 AM   #84
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
You really have no clue do you? A sea kayak is the safest type of paddle boat for use on large bodies of water.

I have no fear of Winni - I'm afraid of the people who feel the need to go fast, at the expense of other boaters.
Spoken from the vast knowledge gained by spending a couple hours lifetime total on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
You're actually suggesting that I give up my preferred type of boating, just so you guys can continue to go as fast as you want?!!! And you complain that a speed limit would infringe on your boating rights? Give me a break!

If I wanted to sail, I would buy a sailboat! Then there's the little problem that hi-speed powerboats also run into sailboats. So how would I be any safer?
I have a sailboat, I've spent tons more time than you on Lake Winnipesaukee in my sailboat alone. I've never felt threatened by large GFBL boats in my sailboat or any of my other boats for that matter. I have felt threatened by several captains in their pontoon boats and runabouts who were either not paying attention or wanted for some reason to get close to the sailboat. One guy was tooling along reading the newspaper. A blast from a canned air horn quickly solved each problem. (By the way, it's not real convenient to carry a canned air horn in a small sail boat either, but your foolish if you venture more than a few hundred feet off shore without one.)

You've decided there is a big problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when in reality and statistically there isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar

The obvious solution is to have you guys slow down, which is exactly what HB-162 is for.

Anyone who thinks that a little flag is going to keep kayakers safe from being run over should watch APS's video link: http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

How much of a chance would any kayaker have if they had been in the path of that speeding boat?
Well, if you were paying attention, unlike the guy who got hit, your chances would have been pretty good in that situation. If however you are in a situation like that and not paying attention you would be in a world of hurt. The person driving that CG boat should not be allowed to drive another CG boat, ever.

Now you called that boat a "speeding boat" which from reading your other posts is not a boat "speeding" at "high speed". From what I can tell from your other posts a "speeding" boat is not exceeding the proposed 45 mph speed limit, whereas a boat "speeding" at "high speed" does exceed the proposed 45 mph speed limit, now these are your words from your posts.
Furthermore, most in that thread pretty much agreed that probably neither boat was capable of traveling over 45 mph, hence the accident happened at a speed of less than 45 mph.

So why is it relevant in a speed limit discussion, other than to prove, yes, accidents do happen, and yes, the cause of this accident was not speeding but operator inattention. Just one more case of your evidence and statistics not proving your point.
ITD is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 10:00 AM   #85
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
EvenStar..

Do you understand the rules of navigation? That video has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with being an complete idiot! That speeding boat that you are so afraid of being run over by is a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boat, probably similar in layout to the one the MP have on Lake Winnipesaukee. It wasn't somebody driving a Hi-Performance boat! The helmsman at the controls of the USCG Patrol Boat was WRONG!
It was actually a USCG Auxilliary boat according to a post on another forum. The USCG crew footage was spliced in by the media. Apparently, the USCG Auxilliary in that area is not very selective... Note the flopping fenders hanging off the starboard side prior to the collision too.
Dave R is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 10:39 AM   #86
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,974
Thanks: 246
Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have no fear of Winni - I'm afraid of the people who feel the need to go fast, at the expense of other boaters.

You're actually suggesting that I give up my preferred type of boating, just so you guys can continue to go as fast as you want?!!! And you complain that a speed limit would infringe on your boating rights? Give me a break!

How much of a chance would any kayaker have if they had been in the path of that speeding boat?
People aren't going fast on Winni at any other boater's expense. They bear the cost all on their own. But seriously, you make it sound like paddlers on Winnipesaukee actaully get run over by speedboats all the time. It's just not true.

The folks we all need to watch out for are the uninformed people plowing along, bow high, making a huge wake and thinking they are saving fuel by not being up on plane. They can hardly see in front of them because they are running at a terrible angle. They are going so slowly that they probably think they don't need to pay much attention, but are moving fast enough to do some serious damage if they do have a collision.

Since you brought up infringment... You are asking that the rules for the whole state be changed to suit your own fears of paddling on one lake that you rarely frequent, right?
Dave R is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 11:08 AM   #87
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.

www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 12:12 PM   #88
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,504
Thanks: 3,113
Thanked 1,089 Times in 783 Posts
Default Marine Patrol accident.

I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 06:35 PM   #89
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Broadhopper:
I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?
I don't recall that event but I do know that the Colregs require vessels to have lights at night. So if the MP boat operator was correct then he/she was not at fault and was a scapegoat.

Quote:
Originally posted by APS:
Boating accidents in nearby Connecticut and New Jersey have spiked.

Both states have required Boater Education much longer than New Hampshire. Their "education" programs are keeping accidents down, all right—but only when there's bad weather!!!

New Jersey went for a NEW!!!—AND—IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course this year when their accident rate went from 85 to 124.
After ignoring this post for a while I decided it needed to be addressed because someone might actually believe it to be accurate, it's not!

New Jersey's NEW!!!-AND-IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course went from requiring operators of PWCs under age 25 to pass a test, to boaters on NON-tidal waters to pass a test! THAT WAS THE NEW AND IMPROVED ASPECT OF THE TEST. It also means ocean boaters are NOT REQUIRED to take or pass a mandatory boating test.

Now I don't know how long their PWC requirement was in effect but the expansion to include NON-tidal waters is much more recent than NH's boater education law!

I'll be the first to admit I don't know alot about boating in New Jersey, but based on a map of NJ I think I am safe in saying the vast majority of boaters are ocean boaters, not lake boaters and are not required to pass a boating education course or pass a test.

So to try to say New Jersey's boating law isn't working when it doesn't require a majority of their boaters to take or pass a boating course is not relevant to anything!
If New Jersey had the same law, or even a similar one to the law in place in NH it might have a place in this discussion!

I have spent some time searching the internet to find a correlation between boater education and increased boating accidents in CT but I haven't found one, could you please tell us your source?

In the meantime I stand by my statement. Boating accidents in NH have decreased every year from 1999 to 2004. Boater education is working, LET IT WORK!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 10:31 PM   #90
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
EvenStar..
Do you understand the rules of navigation? That video has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with being an complete idiot! That speeding boat that you are so afraid of being run over by is a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boat, probably similar in layout to the one the MP have on Lake Winnipesaukee. . . . Of course on the Great Lakes where this occured there is no 150' Safe Passage Rule... so he could have missed the little boat by a few feet and all would be well and legal!
Yes, I understand the navigation rules. Were were discussing visibility, and my point was that powerboaters run into each other out on open water, when visibility is just fine. The operator of the smaller boat admitted that he never even saw the coast guard vessel – a boat that is way larger and way more visible than any kayak. The 150’ rule is a great law, but it won’t prevent a collision, when someone doesn’t even notice that another vessel is in their path. If a kayaker had been in the path of that smaller boat, he would not likely have survived.

Quote:
If the boat is not approaching you on a Zero bearing then its not going to collide with you. Your forward motion of 5-6MPH is pretty similar to the headway speed of any powered vessel and is pretty negligible. Its that simple. Speed is very difficult to judge on the water because you have no point of reference. Its not like a car where you have trees and signs etc to give you a point of reference.
I understand all that, but boats change direction - constantly. I can be safe one second and directly in the path of an approaching high speed boat the next. It really doesn’t make any difference if I can or cannot tell exactly how fast that boat is going.

Quote:
I do understand your fear, and to you its real. But statistically you can safely enjoy your sport on the big lake without compromising another individuals personal freedom.
Look – I kayak for fun. It’s my favorite recreational activity. It’s just not very fun, and certainly not at all relaxing, when I’m out there concerned that one of the many boats traveling at 15 to 20 times my speed might not see me in time to avoid a collision. Every year boats are going faster. PWC also get faster every year. Because of this, NH lakes (not just Winni) are getting less and less enjoyable for paddlers. Our fears are real and our fears are mostly caused by the high speeds of some powerboaters. We can argue about these statistics all you want, but your idea of boating fun is having a very negative impact on many other boaters.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 10:35 PM   #91
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Here's New Jerseys "new and improved" regulations for boaters iin a nut shell

MANASQUAN, N.J. – With the ending of the 211th Legislature, the passage of boater education legislation places New Jersey’s education law amongst the strongest in the nation, according to the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ), which said Assembly Bill 2624 (Smith) was a major priority for the association.

The new boater education and safety law applies to all people age 16 years and older who operate registered vessels above 12 feet that are defined as power vessels under the law. It becomes effective over a staggered period of time. Specifically, persons born after December 31, 1978 have to take the course immediately. Persons born after December 31, 1968 and on or before December 31, 1978 have to take the course before June 1, 2006. Persons born after December 31, 1958 and on or before December 31, 1968 have to take the course before June 1, 2007. Persons born after December 31, 1948 and on or before December 31, 1958 have to take the course before June 1, 2008. All other persons need to take the course before June 1, 2009, according to the association.

This bill states that “out of state” boaters 18 years of age and older who operate a power vessel for less than 90 days in New Jersey are exempt from the safety course if they can show proof of similar education from NASBLA, the Coast Guard or other state.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 03-09-2006, 11:24 PM   #92
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

This is the part of the NJ law that people have left out:

Quote:
13. There is appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of Law and Public Safety a sum in the amount of $2,000,000 for increasing the patrolling of the waters of the State by marine police for the purposes of enforcing this act.
So, NJ passes a law for boater education and they provide their law enforcement agency funds to handle it. Is HB162 going to provide the same funding for Marine Patrol?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 06:41 AM   #93
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Smile Guesstimate needed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadhopper
I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?
Hmmm. Is that the "Littlefield Defense", or the "Marine Patrol Defense"?

I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.

www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf

Woodsy
The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)
ApS is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 08:07 AM   #94
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)
You're right, I think it is very instructive. Watching that guy in the boat that got run over with his head fixed in one direction while there are several boats around shows exactly how dangerous INATTENTION can be. It also shows so called "EXPERTS" can be wrong, the CG driver obviously saw the little boat in plenty of time to AVOID a collision with a simple turn but for some reason ran the guy over. Finally once again, I doubt either boat could go over 45 mph. Maybe you could edit the video, turn down the brightness and claim now you have footage of a night accident to make it fit your agenda.
ITD is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 08:32 AM   #95
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
Hmmm. Is that the "Littlefield Defense", or the "Marine Patrol Defense"?

I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media.



The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)
APS...

I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield.

As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 08:45 AM   #96
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
APS...

I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield.

As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple!

Woodsy
Maybe APS is trying to plant that little seed of doubt in the minds of the senators before the big vote, just like Dan Rather before the presidential election?????????
ITD is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 09:15 AM   #97
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
Yes, I understand the navigation rules. Were were discussing visibility, and my point was that powerboaters run into each other out on open water, when visibility is just fine. The operator of the smaller boat admitted that he never even saw the coast guard vessel – a boat that is way larger and way more visible than any kayak. The 150’ rule is a great law, but it won’t prevent a collision, when someone doesn’t even notice that another vessel is in their path. If a kayaker had been in the path of that smaller boat, he would not likely have survived.


I understand all that, but boats change direction - constantly. I can be safe one second and directly in the path of an approaching high speed boat the next. It really doesn’t make any difference if I can or cannot tell exactly how fast that boat is going.


Look – I kayak for fun. It’s my favorite recreational activity. It’s just not very fun, and certainly not at all relaxing, when I’m out there concerned that one of the many boats traveling at 15 to 20 times my speed might not see me in time to avoid a collision. Every year boats are going faster. PWC also get faster every year. Because of this, NH lakes (not just Winni) are getting less and less enjoyable for paddlers. Our fears are real and our fears are mostly caused by the high speeds of some powerboaters. We can argue about these statistics all you want, but your idea of boating fun is having a very negative impact on many other boaters.
Evenstar...

Your the one who stated you "I can certainly tell the difference betweent 45 and 70mph". When you are in a small craft such as a kayak all boats will seem like they are traveling at high speed. Its nice to see that you have conceded the point that you cannot tell how fast a boat is traveling. Boats don't change direction constantly and certainly not at high speed. However, a boat can approach your kayak from any direction, requiring you to keep your head on a swivel and maintain a proper lookout at all times.

Apparently you don't understand the Rules of Navigation. The guy in the small boat was NOT REQUIRED TO YIELD to the USCG boat. Read my post above. The USCG boat broke the rules, not the little guy, regardless of his admission of inattention. If he had seen the USCG boat, certainly he could have adjusted his course/speed and the collision could have been avoided. It still doesn't change the fact that the USCG boat was in the wrong, the little boat was the stand on boat.

Boats do collide, and the collision in the video above ocurred at speeds well below 45 MPH. The primary reason for that collision is OPERATOR INATTENTION on the part of the USCG boat. Excessive Speed had nothing to do with this accident other than both boats were on plane. If a kayaker had been in the path of either boat I am sure they would have been able to avoid the kayaker. In the video above both operators were singularly focused on what was directly ahead of them, and not any possible dangers approaching from the side.

I have no doubt that kayaking out in the Broads can be a bit nervewracking on a busy summer saturday. I really do understand that. There are quite a few boats out there and while your busy paddling the waves, you don't want to worry about getting run over. The problem is, regardless of a Speed Limit, or a Safe Passage Law, you are primarily responsible for your own safety.

The 150' Safe Passage Rule, or a Speed Limit law, or any other type of law or rule of navigation will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect you if the operator of the boat is not paying attention. If the operator of the boat is paying attention, then you are in absolutely no danger! I am sorry you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 02:36 PM   #98
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
The 150’ rule is a great law, but it won’t prevent a collision, when someone doesn’t even notice that another vessel is in their path. If a kayaker had been in the path of that smaller boat, he would not likely have survived.
Did they lower the bar for acceptance at UNH?

Now you are using inattentive behavior as a reason to justify HB162.

When will the spin end?
GWC... is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 04:31 PM   #99
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool If???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Evenstar...
Your the one who stated you "I can certainly tell the difference betweent 45 and 70mph". When you are in a small craft such as a kayak all boats will seem like they are traveling at high speed. Its nice to see that you have conceded the point that you cannot tell how fast a boat is traveling.
Hey, I actually posted that: “I can certainly tell the difference between 45 and 70mph, when a boat is reasonably close to me!” I’m still standing by that statement. You’re the one who assumed that I was talking about a boat that was on a collision course with me (at a zero heading), which I wasn’t. (I even stated that in my next reply to you.)

I read your entire post, and who was at more at fault was never my point. That video shows two powerboats colliding on open water, when visibility was very good. That was my entire point. That’s what you and I were discussing earlier.
How would that powerboat operator, who didn’t even see a Coast Guard vessel, have seen a much smaller boat????

Quote:
The problem is, regardless of a Speed Limit, or a Safe Passage Law, you are primarily responsible for your own safety.

And what am I supposed to do to prevent being run over by a speeding powerboat??? Believe me, I’m extremely aware of everything on the water, and when I see a powerboat heading in my direction, I make every effort to stay out of his path. But I can only paddle so fast. At my top speed of about 7 feet per second, it takes me over 2 seconds just to travel the length of my kayak, and during those 2 seconds a boat traveling at 70 mph would have covered over 200 feet. Sort of puts me at a slight disadvantage, doesn't it?

Quote:
If the operator of the boat is paying attention, then you are in absolutely no danger! I am sorry you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.


If???

That’s the problem!

If a powerboat operator sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.

But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

(BTW: I have no problem grasping any of the “simple concepts” you guys have presented – the problem is that most of you don’t take your concepts far enough for me. You just use them as far as they support your arguments, and conveniently leave out the parts that don’t.)
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 03-10-2006, 10:13 PM   #100
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Red face A kayaker WAS run over. Who knew?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD
Maybe APS is trying to plant that little seed of doubt in the minds of the senators before the big vote, just like Dan Rather before the presidential election?????????
Remember this gem?

NO KAYAKS HAVE BEEN RUN OVER ON WINNIPESAUKEE!

From the Old Forum:

Quote:
In Response To: Re: fatal boat crash (Baja Bob)

"...Last week a kayak was run over by a powerboat on Winnipesaukee. The victim lived, and was transported to a hospital -- maybe Martha Hitchcock Hospital? (a hospital name not familiar to me). It was "just" broken ribs and other bones, I was told...."
The URL:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45731

(I also think the Coast Guard's impact on the runabout was less than 20MPH—to carry its instructiveness another step).

Last edited by ApS; 03-14-2006 at 07:33 PM. Reason: It's pretty bad when you can't read and understand your own post!
ApS is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.50542 seconds