A Challenge for a Solution to Lake Speeds

[JayDV]

With all the Point and Counterpoint threads in this HB847 issue, I think a collective effort to map out a solution is a good positive direction. This devised solution could be presented to the delayed legislation hearing for consideration.

It is a given that everyone has Constitutional Rghts that can't be violated, but those Rights should not be acceptable practices anywhere and at the whim of the individual. Speeds are governed by laws (maybe inspired by common sense) where excessive speeds may harm or cause harm to others and/or the individual(s) involved. Car owners can drive as fast as they want/can at established speed facilities. Boats don't have the luxury of having a privatized body of water for speed so maybe a little give and take on Winni?

I suggest this challenge for the lake users to mutually come to an amiable solution and then present it to legislative body in charge.

I came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

There may still be time due to the delay so other voices could be heard.

Can we hear yours?

Jay

[Cal]

Wonderful solution. Ever read 1984? Big brother is watching

[JayDV]

I Did read 1984 and I still believe it to be a concern. But I think the Freedom of Information Act (at least on this topic) can help to keep Big Bro in check and will absolutely keep Big Bro accountable. And that is important!

[Dick]

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Here is a compromise idea for a bill that I think makes a lot of sense and would get support from nearly everyone: let's have a boat speed restriction of 6 mph on all NH lakes if the boat is less than 150 feet from: shore, other boats, rafts, docks, . . . anything.

If the watercraft is > 150 feet from anything, we will rely on the U.S. Coast Guideline guideline that has served us (and most other states) very well over these many years, i.e., reasonable & prudent operation according to the prevailing conditions.

The Marine Patrol would not incur any additional costs to enforce the above proposal because radar and specialized training would not be needed. The MP has the power now to issue citations to boaters who are operating their watercraft in a careless or reckless manner in the professional judgement of the MP officer. And this all holds up in court.

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Do emotional "I'm afraid" stories trump the facts?

Look . . . Winnipesaukee is BIG, exciting, and can be very intimidating -- even with no boats out on the lake -- as when there is a stiff wind out of the West. Winni is definitely not a small tranquil pond, but we have at least 900 other small lakes/ponds in the state that are.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Dick

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Here is a compromise idea for a bill that I think makes a lot of sense and would get support from nearly everyone: let's have a boat speed restriction of 6 mph on all NH lakes if the boat is less than 150 feet from: shore, other boats, rafts, docks, . . . anything.

If the watercraft is > 150 feet from anything, we will rely on the U.S. Coast Guideline guideline that has served us (and most other states) very well over these many years, i.e., reasonable & prudent operation according to the prevailing conditions.

The Marine Patrol would not incur any additional costs to enforce the above proposal because radar and specialized training would not be needed. The MP has the power now to issue citations to boaters who are operating their watercraft in a careless or reckless manner in the professional judgement of the MP officer. And this all holds up in court.

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Do emotional "I'm afraid" stories trump the facts?

Look . . . Winnipesaukee is BIG, exciting, and can be very intimidating -- even with no boats out on the lake -- as when there is a stiff wind out of the West. Winni is definitely not a small tranquil pond, but we have at least 900 other small lakes/ponds in the state that are.

Dick - I Am in agreement with the Coast Guard rules as acceptable. But what I am reading here on the forum is that because so many naysayers have caught the legislation's ear a bill is being entertained with a probable passing if not next month or next year, then soon because Winni is only getting more and more popular and busier making the potential of the serious boating accident almost inevitable. As a preventative measure legislation will set forth a law based on whatever facts are obtained. Many have said the fact finding process used last summer was somewhere between planned-inaccurate and bogus. Istead I felt proposing an amicable solution to legislation will allow the lake users some voice in the process of determining whether there is a need for government intervention. I know the state polices the waters, but the properties are owned by the respective towns. Maybe those towns can also request some alternatives? Or maybe the towns are happy the state is stepping in? Maybe the Army Corp of Engineers (I'm guessing here) could help to set up the mechanics of fair evaluations?

[Dick]

Originally Posted by JayDV

" Winni is only getting more and more popular and busier making the potential of the serious boating accident almost inevitable."

If boating on Winnipesaukee were truly dangerous, why would it be a more and more popular boating destination? Wouldn't more people stay away and go to other lakes?

Then too, when there is more boat traffic (and especially in congested areas) the vast majority of boaters naturally have a tendency to slow down and be more alert. We hope the MP nails those few bonehead "captains" who exercise no common sense at all. Unfortunately we can't legislate common sense.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by JayDV

"Many have said the fact finding process used last summer was somewhere between planned-inaccurate and bogus."

They have stated this about the speed survey results because they do not like the results because the facts do not support their position. So they try to discredit the Marine Patrol officers. Do these people also discredit the boating accident/safety reports (over many years) from the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Association of Boating Law Administrators, and our own Dept. of Safety?

Emotional stories do not trump the facts. The facts are clear.

We all know what the real motivation is behind this boat speed restriction bill . . . and it isn't safety.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Dick

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Sounds like a start on a good compromise. We all know that speed has to be proper for the conditions. There are times and places where speeds can be high and other times and/or places (limited sightlines) where it can't. Having a speed limit that applies when and where the lake is "crowded" and doesn't when and where it isn't make sense. No wonder it was killed.

Originally Posted by Dick

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Good point that's apparently lost on some people.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by JayDV

I came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

Jay

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

Like I said, it was an idea that needed extra work. But thanks.

I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I am completely in favor of the laws as they are. I am against these HB bills. There is very few things as exhilarating as speeding over the water. I had been going to Winni for 50 years and for 37 of them we had our own boat. As a young teen I found myself in front of the Laconia judge 2 times. I have reconciled with myself that my "fun" days up there are not in my future, but I read about the events up there right here on the forum. What I was hoping from this thread was to get the "gofast" people and the "slowdown" people to mutually come up with an acceptable formula. If left to legislation only, and they mandate a speed limit based on a political agenda (or whatever Dick's point was) without hearing all the voices then ...

But if what was said was that common sense will win out and the bill will not get passed then hooray!

[Dick]

Me-N-Mac wrote, "We all know that speed has to be proper for the conditions. There are times and places where speeds can be high and other times and/or places (limited sightlines) where it can't. Having a speed limit that applies when and where the lake is "crowded" and doesn't when and where it isn't make sense."

Very true. That is why you can't come up with some sort of arbitrary speed limit and make it apply to all situations. It is also why our current guideline of "reasonable and prudent according to the prevailing conditions" makes the most sense. I agree, when conditions are congested, 45 mph or even 30 mph, while legal, would be too fast. On the other hand if you are out on The Broads in your performance boat at 8:00 AM on a week day, there are no other boats in sight, and visibility is good, 45 mph is a totally unreasonable restriction.

Thanks for trying to mind-storm to come up with some sort of compromise solution that would be acceptable to both camps.

[BroadHopper]

I like the idea of a compromise. Hopefully our representatives in legislature is reading this post and realize there are intelligient alternatives.
As a barefoot skier, I will be vioalating the 45 'rule' everytime I exercise my hobby. I do this whenever the condtions are right and that there is no or very little traffic. I can't see an harm in this.

[Hottrucks]

Over the years i have noticed one thing and I think you will find this in many motor sports....the men/women that are true go fast people aren't the problem they are truthfully probably the best examples for there respective sports/hobbies..what we need to clamp down on is " Capt. Bonehead"
I'll use the same term as allot of others here ..the GFBL people don't run these boats flat out all the time and I'm sure that they want the same thing as everyone else....a Safe place to boat... I'm not going to even try to find or post #'s but Most all of us use our boats to hang out and relax with maybe ( Just a guess by looking @ alot of Hours meters) 10% of the time the boat is even running...yea we all have gone some place store, restaurant where ever and to say you never had an adult beverage I think would be a lie from 99.9% of boats...but we need to clamp down on what we all know is a big problem and probally cause of most accedents..it has been done in the cars and maybe we need to get on this a little harder.....AS has been said a million times people need to taught what proper edicate on the water is along with some common sence.....I think we need to find a way to get Joe weekend rental guy some of this and make the rental place more responceable, maybe all rentals should be tagged with there names ( we could all run the other way then) in 8" high letters down both sides..

That my .02 on this but I could go on!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff

[JayDV]

I remember my first try at barefoot skiiing. What a thrill! But that brings up a good point.

What are viable reasons to travel greater than 45mph?
1) Barefoot skiing - I believe they recommend > 48mph.
2) How about outrunning an electrical storm to port or home providing waves not too large?
3) Sea planes landing and takeoff

Here is a good one:
Is the lake a lake when it is frozen? If so ... any snowmobilers out there?

There may be others, but if bill goes through are these listed activities breaking the law?

If the law exists and these activities are overlooked does that mean the law can be bent? And does that set the precedent that attys can now cite thus further binding officers hands about enforcing laws? Not to mention the unrecoverable court costs involved.

[fatlazyless]

On February 2, 2006; HB162 which was the last version of the current HB847 speed limits, passed the 400 volunteer member, New Hampshire House of State Representatives by 193-139. On March 16, 2006 it died in the 24 member New Hampshire State Senate by 15-9.

Since 2006, the NH House and Senate have both changed from a red Republican to a blue Democratic majority.

Governor John Lynch has indicated that he will sign the speed limits bill if it reaches his desk.

Contrary to what someone like myself may incorrectly assume, the speed limits issue is not really a partisan D-R split issue as there as D's & R's on both sides of the issue.

The leader of the anti-speed limits in the House looks to be its' Republican minority leader, Rep. Mike Whalley (R) Alton, who also is one of the owner's of the state's largest jetski & jetboat dealership. So, he has a personal business interest here.

If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Something new this year, which was not here in 2006, is the proposed community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford on Lake Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire Department of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association to build a community sailing building-sailing teaching facility at the end of the beautifull sandy beach in the corner close to Scenic Drive. It is scheduled to open in 2009!

If you want to help build the new community sailing facility, www.lwsa.org, a fully tax deductible organization, there is a donations link at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3. Please check out this website and the photographs for some insight into youth sailing, ages 8-16, & adults, on Lake Winnipesaukee, or take a peek at the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the boating section, which includes a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun.

With the speed limit scheduled to be voted in the NH House on this Wednesday, how can the community sailing program coexist with 32'-8000lb-1200hp boats capable of 80-100mph who's owners insist that going 80-100mph is acceptable? The sailing program started in about 1988 and has outgrown it's hardworking, and highly regarded, Smith Cove facility in Gilford at www.FaysBoatyard.com and is making a giant step forward with its' move to the extremely attractive sandy beach at Ellacoya State Park located on the wide open expanse of Lake Winnipesaukee.
....

[Dick]

Once again I must take my hat off to you for your intelligent and thoughful thinking. Many legislators (probably most) do not have any firsthand experience operating a boat on Winnipesaukee. Therefore, they do not have the insights into what all the implications may be for passing a new restrictive law. Have they thought about how this bill would restrict snowmobilers, barefoot skiers, bass fishermen? . . . I doubt it.

Are we turning into a nanny state? Most of us want government to stay out of our lives unless there is a very good objective reason to pass a new restrictive law. As I've written before, emotional "I'm afraid" stories should not trump the facts. Just because a bunch of organized lakeshore property owners want to drive the big performance boats off their lake and into the ocean does not make it right.

[fatlazyless]

...a nanny state...a nanny state...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 27' twin-hull, Skater-CAT w/ twin Merc 300hp, high performance two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

OK, here's my compromise.

7 to 45mph = 150 foot rule
45 to 75 = 300 foot rule
75 and up = 600 foot rule.

Maps show three zones so we all know where it is even possible for a boat to consider a high speed range. 600 feet would restrict the boats to fairly ideal conditions in large areas.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On February 2, 2006;
If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les, but according to definitions from 2 dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel) vessels, among a couple of non-relevant definitions, ARE referring to aircraft. And since "travelling" would be reason for a vessel a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races.

The sailing group is a great idea, but is ice sailing not really sailing? Or the 45+ speeds attained in an iceboat excusable? And do they ice sail or race in coves? or only open spaces?

These are some more reasons that the slows and the fasts work together to reach resolutions not stand on opposite shores and digitally orate.

[BroadHopper]

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by JayDV

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les...a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races...

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

[Dick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...a Nanny State...a Nanny State...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 32' Skater w/ twin Merc 300hp, two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

I am not that man.

If that gentleman was out on The Broads on a week day, with few if any other boats in sight, and visibilty was very good, 45 mph would be an unreasonable restriction. On the other hand, if this gentleman was coming into a congested area within Wolfboro Bay, 45 mph (or even 30 mph) would be too fast. This is why NH, like most states, have adopted the U.S. Coast Guard guideline of operating your watercraft in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the prevailing conditions. As evidenced by our excellent boating safety record here in New Hampshire, this has served us very well. You can't pick a blanket arbitrary speed limit number and expect it to make sense in all conditions.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

The Coast Guard has floated the idea of a transponder for all recreational boats. This was for homeland security issues but once they are on the boats, other applications are possible. But of course the potential for abuse by an overreaching government is also possible.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Skip

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

Thanks Skip. I'm confident in your knowledge and memory. I'm merely trying to identify that there may be activities where speed limits may be exceeded. Sea planes landing and taking off is a big one as they have as much (or as little) emergency reaction time as the fast boats that have created a stir. And yes, I am reaching when I included frozen water and ice craft, but I watch Law & Order and I see how some of these McCoy-types tweak mindsets. It is easier to identify extreme instances and discount them, then to realize after the fact that something should have been included.

But aside from emergency vessels and barefoot skiing and bass boats, and I'll include Official Sanctioned Events, is there circumstances where excessive speed is needed or practiced?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

Actually, a similar type of system is in use now for aviation. It is called TCAS. In a nutshell the planes interrogate each other for potential conflicts within a predetermined distance. If a conflict (collision) is eminent, the system gives a warning. The system is not without issues however, first and foremost is that not all aircraft are required to have the system. Secondly it is costly, although it is becoming less expensive. As with anything, a variant could be adapted to the lake. The main question becomes, considering the current statistics ( no speed related deaths in the past 5 or more years) is the expense of such a system justified? I say absolutely not. It would be an expensive way to address a problem that doesn't exist.

More info. on TCAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS

[Skip]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

OK, lets try and kill this one last time.

HB 847 specificall addresses "vessels" on Lake Winnipesukee.

RSA 270-D:1 states: ...XI. ""Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.
Therefore by statute your aircraft is exempt from the speed limit as proposed is HB 847. There is no gray area or technicality that could include your aircraft under the bill proposed.

Further proof?

RSA 270:13-a closes any argument on HB 847 or any other regulation that would hamper your ability to take off or land:

270:13-a Operation of Seaplanes or Helicopters on Public Waters. –
I. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats which lands on public waters shall be exempt from all laws and rules concerning the operation of boats for the purpose of landing and taking off from such public waters.
II. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats shall exercise due caution and respect for the rights and safety of any person or boat using the public waters.

As for the applicability of HB 847 to ice racers or snowmobiles, neither meet the definiton of watercraft therefore they also are exempt from HB 847.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.....

Skip

[Woodsy]

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.


Woodsy

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.


Woodsy

I like this one. Complete with how the offenders will be handled. Thanks a lot. If the lights go on, the speed comes down. Cool.
Some people may not like the $5/non-motorized boat water access sticker, but a good idea. Here in CT we pay $20/year/registered vehicle for a town sticker that allows us use of town dump and parking at beaches regardles of number of times used.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847! ....

Woodsy

This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true.

I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

When was there ever a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH proposed by HB-847? Please post the accident specifics!

In the last 5 YEARS there has only been 1 fatal boat vs. boat collision on Lake Winnipesaukee... and that occured at night at an estimated 28MPH! If you want to look like a fool and split hairs over 3 MPH, go ahead. This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum.

Why do we need HB-847? Because of 1 fatal accident that occurred at night, that involved ALCOHOL and occurred 5 YEARS AGO? That consitutes a demonstrable need for speed limit? WOW!! Thats a pretty good stretch even for you!


Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy

If you were aware of even 1 accident then you should not have posted "ABSOLUTELY NO DATA".\

But nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to nighttime only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

You only came up with those qualifications after I showed you your post was a lie!

There is more than enough data, and more than enough deaths, including two last summer on a lake not far from here.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

You have to cut data collection off somewhere, one accident in five years certainly indicates a lack of a pattern.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Winnipesaukee is in New Hampshire, see my first response.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Not that I know of any non-boat to boat, but they are not as relevant to the problem. A single boat collision generally indicates that only those involved in the alleged irresponsible activity were affected.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

You were the one that indicated there were fatal accidents. Show us your data.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

HB-847 is written to include a speed limit on all NH lakes. The amendment to limit it to Winnipesaukee was added by the House Transportation Committee. When the House votes on the Bill, they will also have to vote on any amendments that were added. The original Bill could pass with or without any amendments.

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

One very strong argument for a lake speed limit law is actually BWI. People who operate under the influence often disreguard speed limits. Without a speed limit law all the MP has is their judgment that the operator is being reckless. A speed limit could make BWI behavior easier to spot.

Another point: Collisions might be rare, but close calls seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes, so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. But whenever we point this out, we are told that we are exagerating (or are accused of lying). This is not a conspiracy - many of us have conclude from our own personal experience on the lake(s) that high speed boats are a danger to us.

The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not a danger to paddlers.

Reducing the maximum speeds of boats will make any lake safer - that's a fact.

[Bear Islander]

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Anything else?

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.



If you can't stand the heat...... Stop cooking the data!

[Airwaves]

Bear Island wrote in part:

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.

I never did hear the outcome of that PWC fatal. IIRC a 15? year old boy was found alone and dead on his PWC but I never heard the circumstances that caused the death, has anyone else?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Anything else?

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.

I am glad we agree on something!

The underage accident on Winnipesaukee does not count in defense of the need for a speed limit in my opinion. Yes, it was an unfortunate incident, but the facts remain that the driver was underage and probably did not have the training or experience to be out there. The parents are at fault for allowing usage of the machine and failed to keep their child safe. Isn't that what parenting is about? Protecting our children. Also, I do not recall any reports that speed was a factor.

I do agree that an accident on Long Lake is close enough to take into account, however the key factor was alcohol. The driver was drinking and most likely showing off to a younger passenger. The guy was a moron and two people died. I have not heard of anyone really fighting a night time limit. At 60mph at night clearly the boat was traveling faster than it should given the conditions.

Taken the above into account, compare it to the Meredith accident and you come up with two common denominators: alcohol and night time. A speed limit will not stop drinking, nothing will. If people want to get smashed and drive they will do it regardless. I think that similar outcomes would be found if the perps were driving other types of boats. Nobody needs to be traveling 60mph at night as in the Maine accident. Speed was not the issue in the NH case.

Being that the data shows a night time only issue, make it a night time speed limit and step up patrols in the vicinity of public docks to prevent people leaving bars drunk from driving away in their boat. This could be aided by the local PD's and is not only the job of MP to enforce.

You still can't fix stupid, but this is a better choice than a full-blown limit.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime (where was this said?), involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Well yes, I do think that in order to be considered the accident should be relevant to the proposed law. Thank you for laying it out.

[Woodsy]

QUOTE=Bear Islander;62238]This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true.

I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.[/QUOTE]

Bear Islander...

HB-847 proposes both DAYTIME and NIGHTTIME speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee ONLY. I had earlier proposed a compromise, essentially a night time speed limit. It was in this light that I rationally responded to the above highlighted sentence in your post.

However, if you want to split hairs I will be happy to do so. Although it does seem like trying to reason with you is very similar to trying to reason with a spoiled 3 year old child.

HB-847 is Lake Winnipesaukee specific, so one would think your response should be Lake Winnipesaukee specific. However, if you can come up with an incident/accident that occured on a different NH lake, I'll accept it.

So I ask you again... in very simple terms... When was there EVER a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH? Again.. Please post the accident specifics!

I did not put a time frame on the accident data. I merely stated that the last fatal accident that occurred as the result boat vs. boat occurred at night, 5 years ago at an estimated speed of 28MPH... and there was ALCOHOL involved!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I do agree that an accident on Long Lake is close enough to take into account, however the key factor was alcohol. The driver was drinking and most likely showing off to a younger passenger.

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

So you admit that your wish for a speed limit is solely to keep a certain type of boat off of Lake Winni, right?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

Is the fact that the boat owner was boating in Maine instead of Mass truly because of a speed limit in Mass? I doubt it, that is your opinion. Many out of staters have places in NH or Mass, including yourself. This does not mean he doesn't boat in Mass, or was forced to boat in Maine due to a lack of speed limits there.

What makes you think the speed limit would have kept him off the lake altogether? That is absurd. I have 2 boats that go over 45mph, that does not mean I will take them elsewhere because of a speed limit. Unless you got your HP limit there is still nothing to prevent him from boating legally in his Dominator on Long Lake, or Winnipesaukee for that matter. You might as well push for prohibition to be brought back as well, it is the only shot you have at slowing or preventing the drunks. Alcohol and stupidity is to blame, not the type of boat in both cases.

Being that at the time of the incident Shep Brown's was the local Sunsation dealer I am surprised that you have not blamed the Littlefield's for this one too...

[fatlazyless]

Today could be an interesting day at the NH Statehouse if the HB 847 proposal gets to the floor of the House. Today is a rainy, dreary and warm 40ish day, here in New Hampshire. The House of Representatives has floorseats for the 400 state reps, and the balcony has seats for 200 spectators.

Most likely, the combined anti-HB847 forces of Rupublican minority leader Rep Mike Whalley (R) Alton, the NH Marine Trades Assoc lobby group, and their partners in the local and national high performance, boat business will do their best to slow down HB 847, so they can go fast.

Perhaps a compelling and articulate motivational speaker telling the 400 volunteer state reps how and why Lake Winnipesaukee needs to have 'a need for speed.' ...good luck to the go fast-be loud crowd....methinks it will be a tough sell....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive. As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

"Others" need to include the latest WaveRunner Cruiser Jet-Ski. It weighs a lighter 840 pounds now (down 25%), and has a supercharged engine.

I tried to find out the top speed of this craft that goes 0-30-MPH in under two seconds, but nobody's sayin'.

This quote did appear, however:

"I like the WaveRunner Cruiser. Questions have been asked if it is capable of 75 mph. I was told at the dealership it was capable of doing 85 mph...by my speedometer, I went 76 mph at that point I backed off. I was being raised out of the seat. Too fast for me. I probably won't do that again."

http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/en...21658&veh=8676



Surely, it can be made to go faster, right?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Is the fact that the boat owner was boating in Maine instead of Mass truly because of a speed limit in Mass? I doubt it, that is your opinion. Many out of staters have places in NH or Mass, including yourself. This does not mean he doesn't boat in Mass, or was forced to boat in Maine due to a lack of speed limits there.

What makes you think the speed limit would have kept him off the lake altogether? That is absurd. I have 2 boats that go over 45mph, that does not mean I will take them elsewhere because of a speed limit. Unless you got your HP limit there is still nothing to prevent him from boating legally in his Dominator on Long Lake, or Winnipesaukee for that matter. You might as well push for prohibition to be brought back as well, it is the only shot you have at slowing or preventing the drunks. Alcohol and stupidity is to blame, not the type of boat in both cases.

Being that at the time of the incident Shep Brown's was the local Sunsation dealer I am surprised that you have not blamed the Littlefield's for this one too...

This is not about Marinas or a type of boat. It is about the direction the lake is going in. I'm sure that there are some people that can operate high performance boats safely, even on Winnipesaukee. It's a shame that this legislation, if passed, will inconvenience some responsible members of the lake community.

But if other lakes, like Lake George or Long Lake have speed limits and we do not, then this lake will be the destination for high performance boating. There are people boating here now that were on Lake George years ago.

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains. That is a bad combination for an already crowded lake. Long Lake learned that lesson last summer. I am supporting legislation I believe may prevent similar lessons on Winni.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains.

And let us not forget the people who have large wallets and narrow minds

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is not about Marinas or a type of boat. It is about the direction the lake is going in. I'm sure that there are some people that can operate high performance boats safely, even on Winnipesaukee. It's a shame that this legislation, if passed, will inconvenience some responsible members of the lake community.

But if other lakes, like Lake George or Long Lake have speed limits and we do not, then this lake will be the destination for high performance boating. There are people boating here now that were on Lake George years ago.

Some performance boaters are experienced and responsible. Some have large wallets and small.... brains. That is a bad combination for an already crowded lake. Long Lake learned that lesson last summer. I am supporting legislation I believe may prevent similar lessons on Winni.

You do realize that you are totally contradicting yourself, right?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

You do realize that you are totally contradicting yourself, right?

There is no contradiction.

The problem is not the type of boat. The problem is increasing numbers of that type of boat on an already overcrowded lake. The problem is that as other large lakes enact speed limits, Winni becomes the place to go if you want speed.

I love speed. But speed is not appropriate when it interferes with the rights of others to enjoy this beautiful lake. Such interference is real and growing.

Many years ago I directed a children's camp in NH. I can't imagine the anxiety camp directors on Winni must have sending their children out on this lake. I know some camps now keep their children on shore on weekends. When I weigh that against the "right" of the few to go fast, the answer is simple. Speed limits!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is no contradiction.

The problem is not the type of boat. The problem is increasing numbers of that type of boat on an already overcrowded lake. The problem is that as other large lakes enact speed limits, Winni becomes the place to go if you want speed.

I love speed. But speed is not appropriate when it interferes with the rights of others to enjoy this beautiful lake. Such interference is real and growing.

Many years ago I directed a children's camp in NH. I can't imagine the anxiety camp directors on Winni must have sending their children out on this lake. I know some camps now keep their children on shore on weekends. When I weigh that against the "right" of the few to go fast, the answer is simple. Speed limits!

So it IS about a type of boat...

[Bear Islander]

No, it's not.

But why is that distinction so important? The lake needs speed limits if I like performance boats, and the lake needs speed limits if I don't like performance boats.

How do my person predilections change the situation?

[BroadHopper]

way off from the original intent. Let's close this thread.

[fatlazyless]

I've been to Lake Winnepocket in Webster visiting, and saw a 19' bass boat with a 150hp Yamaha. The people I'm visiting remarked....that boat is way too big for this little lake...it's not right...a boat like that belongs on Lake Winnipesaukee. So, probably it's true, people with the big powerfull boats want the big water where they have always been welcome, and there's lots of other fast boats.

That makes sense even to me. Some one area of the lake should become the designated 'go-fast zone.'

Considering that State Reps Janet Allen, Laurie Boyce, Charles Clark, John Thomas, and Mike Whalley, all Republicans, all voted NO to HB847, and all are from Alton or very close to Alton, maybe one of them could sponsor a post HB847 bill that creates an Alton Bay go-fast zone.

Looking all around the lake, that five state representative concentration of HB847 nay-voters is definately unique and sticks out like a red plague. so's probably them and their local supporters could support the concentration of go-fasts and it could become a venue with good business & spectators on Alton Bay. Alton Bay has always been a speedy type of a place, imho. It offers the only spot on the lake where the water is easily seen from the roads on both sides. There's a number of marinas and food-service businesses that could benefit. People could go there by boat or by car to watch the go-fasts.

I could bring my new-old $250 kayak and paddle up & down the shallows fishn' for sunfish while watch'n the big, bad, go-fasts charge up & down the Bay on a hot & humid, August Sunday morning!

Sounds pretty danged good, don't it!

Let's go to Alton Bay, watch the go-fasts, play some minature golf, and snack on some granola................Alton Bay!

[JayDV]

Has the presidential hopeful made his opinion known about speeds on his summer retreat place? Would be a shame if his party allies voted against him.

Maybe the Secret Service would not be happy if everyone was crawling past the estate at 25 mph if he gets elected. Actually, the whole Winni estate security would probably be a nightmare.

[fatlazyless]

Mitt has expressed many times that he is against any speed limits and say's 'let the markets set the pace."

He's got this trick that he's perfected: standing on an old wood stepladder that's screwed to an old wood aquaboard, Mitt can waterski that set-up all the way around the scary waters of Rattlesnake Island, honest to goodness!!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The owner of that boat is from Massachusetts. But he had to take his boat out of state because Massachusetts has a state wide speed limit.

If Long Lake had a speed limit this guy might still have been drinking and showing off. BUT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON ANOTHER LAKE! And two people would still be alive.

As the years pass, more and more lakes will enact speed limits. Thus more and more idiots like him will be headed for the few remaining unrestricted lakes. The only thing that will stop him and others from ending up on Winnipesaukee is a speed limit.

Take your boat down to the CT. River just north of Springfield MA for a day sometime. You'll get to experience boating with a 45 MPH speed limit. Like Lake George, it's loaded with GFBL boats going well over 45 MPH. Be careful what you wish for...

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Mitt has expressed many times that he is against any speed limits and say's 'let the market steer the course."

He's got this trick that he's perfected: standing on an old wood stepladder that screwed to an old wood aquaboard, Mitt can waterski that set-up all the way around the scary waters of Rattlesnake Island, honest to goodness!!

Seems to me then he needs some education then........I wonder if he has his safe boater card??????? I will say.... nothing will be cooler than sitting in a class room with 20 secret service guys in black coats and ear pieces learning the 150' rule...and something tells me they would have GFBL boats in a big way..... or maybe a whaler with a 50 cal mounted on it

[ITD]

Maybe that's the solution, designate Lake Winnipesaukee the go fast lake and ban the granola munching, kayak paddling blue plague to Lake Winnepocket. Set a minimum HP limit for Lake Winnipesaukee, say 300 hp or you can't play. Same exclusionary practice, just a different target. What's good for goose, should be good for the gander.

This would solve the proponents alleged "safety issues", would really reduce the "wake problem" as fast boats produce small wakes. It would also get rid of the "crowding problem" as most boats are less than 300 hp. It's the perfect logical solution to the SL proponents issues.

[Bear Islander]

When boats on Lake George are going "well over" the limit, are they going in the 45 to 60 range? If they are, then I don't see the problem. If they are going 90 mph then Lake George has an enforcement problem they need to address.

Route 93 has a 65 mph limit. Yet 70, 75 and even 80 are the norm in the left lane. That is called human nature. The same will be true on Winni, just as it is on George.

However people that go double the limit will end up standing in front of a judge. This will be true on Route 93, Lake George and Winnipesaukee.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I've been to Lake Winnepocket in Webster visiting, and saw a 19' bass boat with a 150hp Yamaha. The people I'm visiting remarked....that boat is way too big for this little lake...it's not right...a boat like that belongs on Lake Winnipesaukee. So, probably it's true, people with the big powerfull boats want the big water where they have always been welcome, and there's lots of other fast boats.

Bass boat anglers want to go where the bass fishing is good -- not necessarily where they can go fast (and that depends on your definition of what "fast" is). On smaller bodies of water a bass boat often only uses the electric motor on the bow and may never fire up the outboard. It is not unusual for a bass boat to travel over 50 miles on an 8 hour Winnipesaukee bass club tounament. The reason these boats are designed to quickly and safety travel great distances is to minimize the amount of time spent traveling and maximize the amount of time spent fishing.

Most bass club tournaments start at 7:00 AM when there is little or no other boat traffic. If water conditions are good, 45 mph is an unreasonable restriction. When these boats come back to the launch site at 2:30 PM there is usually no way to come back across The Broads WOT because of all the cross wake/wave speed bumps.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When boats on Lake George are going "well over" the limit, are they going in the 45 to 60 range?

Beats me. My point was that you may think MA and NY have a great thing going with thier speed limits, but if you actually try boating there, you'll find that it's far less pleasant than Winnipesaukee. We have a great thing going on this lake, not sure why you'd want to change it, especially to make it more like MA and NY lakes.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Dave R

especially to make it more like MA and NY lakes.

Because that's what NH is beginning to become, little Massachusetts. I come to NH to get away from Massachusetts. Others come to NH to turn it into Massachusetts. So much for Live Free or Die............

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Beats me. My point was that you may think MA and NY have a great thing going with thier speed limits, but if you actually try boating there, you'll find that it's far less pleasant than Winnipesaukee. We have a great thing going on this lake, not sure why you'd want to change it, especially to make it more like MA and NY lakes.

It only makes sense that this is what the goal is, most of the license plates at the long term parking slips at Shep's are MA or NY.

[Bear Islander]

And CT

,

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by ITD

Because that's what NH is beginning to become, little Massachusetts. I come to NH to get away from Massachusetts. Others come to NH to turn it into Massachusetts. So much for Live Free or Die............

You've hit the peverbial nail right on the head.

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

It only makes sense that this is what the goal is, most of the license plates at the long term parking slips at Shep's are MA or NY.

And that Is true of most marinas around Winni. Most of the liscence plates are Mass, Ct, And NY. Over the last thirty years or so NH has become the playground of Mass. residents Ever wonder why every Friday night they are all In there cars driving up here to paradise?

( Ok now watch the bashers come out of the woodwork )

[Bear Islander]

Thankfully the states in question are all part of the United States of America. We are free to move and visit from state to state as we choose. Residents of Massachusetts require no permission to move to, or vacation in, New Hampshire. Each citizen has equal say regardless of length of residency.

Let's go to some of the world class hospitals in the Boston area and look for the license plates of people coming down from New Hampshire for life saving medical treatments. On second thought, let's not do that, because they have every right to be here.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by JayDV

"...With all the Point and Counterpoint threads in this HB847 issue, I think a collective effort to map out a solution is a good positive direction...Can we hear yours...?"

Thanks for trying; as we've seen, it set a few gears to a-turning.

Originally Posted by JayDV

This devised solution could be presented to the delayed legislation hearing for consideration.came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

Pfffffftttt. Your suggestion is costly to a resource-drained state.

In my plan, monies would be at the expense of the boat manufacturers (NAMMI), who have lots of cash—and the wherewithal to restore any boats tested for resale.

__________________________________________________


PLAN A: Require that a boat's top speed will not permit traveling more than 30-feet on land.

(Recalling Eagle-/Parker-/Rattlesnake-/Camp-Island's crashes related to speed).

1) Since we know that 130-feet on land is small change for some boats, obviously we can't re-use the Eagle Island crash site due to the close-call sleeping cabin dwellers there already received. Selected test locations need not endanger dwellings—though the structure would provide an adequately-sized target.

2) Use of a different state's waters (other than NH's) would remove any possible bias. I propose that Long Lake be used as a crash site, since a suitable site was quickly (but not quietly) prepared during last year's boating season.

3) Therefore, using much simpler technology than what JayDV has suggested, boats could be driven directly on shore to determine lethality—remotely.

4) On the up-side, this removes alcohol as a variable.

5) On the downside, there's always the argument that such examinations on waters other than New Hampshire lakes are always invalid.

PLAN B: Plan B proposes that any boat having a windshield be prohibited from exceeding 45-MPH. (Including boats with painted-over windshields, such as the boat pictured below).

Anyone who has experienced a wind velocity of 45-MPH in their unprotected face knows that 45 is very fast indeed in any conveyance without a windshield.



And speaking of that 7-ton, 95-MPH boat, its "captain" is quoted as saying:

"...I never only look up to 150’ and tend to see or view well beyond that and would certainly not aim directly towards another boat or person at any speed..." http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb8...cbourgeois.htm

Missiles are for "aiming". I don't "aim" my boat.

Anyone else in the speed-limit debate thinking that "aim" is a very poor word-choice?

Could he see Evenstar directly ahead of him in the photograph?

[chipj29]

As much as I hate driving up I-93 on Friday afternoons, it is a fact of life that people from Mass vacation in NH. And we need their $$. Mass residents have been coming to NH to vacation for 100 years, and it is not about to stop now, speed limit or not.

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thankfully the states in question are all part of the United States of America. We are free to move and visit from state to state as we choose. Residents of Massachusetts require no permission to move to, or vacation in, New Hampshire. Each citizen has equal say regardless of length of residency.

Let's go to some of the world class hospitals in the Boston area and look for the license plates of people coming down from New Hampshire for life saving medical treatments. On second thought, let's not do that, because they have every right to be here.

We In NH are also fortunate to world class hospitals. I can attest to that. january 21st. 2007 The fine Crew at concord hospital Saved my life with an operation that I was not supposed to survive.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thankfully the states in question are all part of the United States of America. We are free to move and visit from state to state as we choose. Residents of Massachusetts require no permission to move to, or vacation in, New Hampshire. Each citizen has equal say regardless of length of residency.

Let's go to some of the world class hospitals in the Boston area and look for the license plates of people coming down from New Hampshire for life saving medical treatments. On second thought, let's not do that, because they have every right to be here.

Each resident doesn't have equal say, only permanent residents. Bit of a stretch there comparing speed limits on the lake to hospitals in Boston that offer life saving medical treatments, but then again this whole issue is about stretching things (the truth) isn't it.

[Bear Islander]

I was stretching the point, not the truth.

You want to make the distinction between residents and permanent residence. There is no length of residency requirement in order to vote where you live. And no limit on how often or repeatedly you can move your primary residence. In practice it's to much trouble to keep getting a new drivers license every few months.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thankfully the states in question are all part of the United States of America. We are free to move and visit from state to state as we choose. Residents of Massachusetts require no permission to move to, or vacation in, New Hampshire. Each citizen has equal say regardless of length of residency.

Let's go to some of the world class hospitals in the Boston area and look for the license plates of people coming down from New Hampshire for life saving medical treatments. On second thought, let's not do that, because they have every right to be here.

The "minds" of WinnFAb will put an end to that in due time...

Anyone view their website, lately?

Originally Posted by online Concord Monitor

The supporters of WinnFab (advocates of a speed limit on the lake) must be either stupid or intellectually dishonest. They reported that a boating accident last week that threw two individuals from a speeding boat was proof that a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee is necessary.

This past weekend my neighbor and I rescued a couple who were also thrown from their boat and they weren't wearing any life preservers. The reason you haven't heard WinnFab talking about this accident is because it was a sailboat. Shouldn't that be proof that a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee should be something less than 4 knots?

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

[Bear Islander]

That link does not go to WinnFABS, this one does.

http://www.winnfabs.com





I think you should point out that the article you are quoting is 2 1/2 years old.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That link does not go to WinnFABS, this one does.

http://www.winnfabs.com

I think you should point out that the article you are quoting is 2 1/2 years old.

Here's the date of the article, for those who do not wish to see that which is self evident...

August 05. 2005 8:20AM

Then, again, an agenda can cause selective vision...

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I was stretching the point, not the truth.

You want to make the distinction between residents and permanent residence. There is no length of residency requirement in order to vote where you live. And no limit on how often or repeatedly you can move your primary residence. In practice it's to much trouble to keep getting a new drivers license every few months.

The issue isn't residency. Here's my gripe. If this law passes and the digital odometer on my boat says I'm going 45 I may or may not get clocked going exactly 45 by MP radar. I could possible get clocked going 46 and that according to the law is reason enough to give me a ticket. OK so I get a ticket and if that's not bad enough it also goes on my NH driving record. ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?!? and yes I'm yelling about this!! I can't believe that NH is also going to punish me by points on my drivers license for an infraction on my boat. Is that even legal? You do NOT I repeat DO NOT even need a valid drivers license to operate a boat on NH waters, just a valid Safe Boating Certificate (and I won't even get into the confusion on that). Talk about gov't getting involved where they don't need to be!! This is Mass gov't at it's finest and it's right here at work in good ol' New Hampshire. We should ALL be outraged by this bill and the fact that it goes way beyond just your rights as a boater. If this passes you have to ask yourself what's next.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you should point out that the article you are quoting is 2 1/2 years old.

Kinda like that drunk that killed a guy in his GFBL hmmmm???? OH I forgot he was speeding....@ 28 mph


On a side note has anyone calibrated there boat speedo's this year yet?

Oh wait my boat doesn't even have one......who's going to shell out $$ for ALL the boats that don't have them or are inacurate.....

I would like one of those nice dash mounted ones with big #'s please

[Skip]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

...Here's my gripe. If this law passes and the digital odometer on my boat says I'm going 45 I may or may not get clocked going exactly 45 by MP radar. I could possible get clocked going 46 and that according to the law is reason enough to give me a ticket...

The proposed law this year is in the same format as previous proposals, the speed limit will be a "prima facie" limit based on the unreasonable speed concept and not an "absolute" limit, as found in nearby Maine.

The difference? Significant to law enforcement personnel.

In Maine and other States that have "absolute" speed limits, it is an accepted concept that regardless of conditions any speed over the posted limit is proof of guilt.

In New Hampshire the proposed boating speed limits will be based on the same principles as our terrestial limits, the "prima facie" and "unreasonable speed" concept.

Simply stated, while any spped over the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence that an offense has occured, the operator can use an affirmative defense that given the time, place and conditions the speed at the time was not "unreasonable".

Let's say that it is 5:00 PM on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of the Broads. Its a bright and clear day with unlimited visibility. Its only you and the MP radar boat. You will not receive a ticket for 46 in a 45 unless that poor MP officer never wants to face the wrath of that particular court again.

It is a pretty poorly kept secret that in New Hampshire, depending on the Department, the leeway under normal conditions to succesfully get a conviction before a Municipal Court judge is anywhere from 10 to 15 MPH over the posted limit.

How would I know? Been there, done that on the prosecution side many, many times...and as some of you already suspected I am a certified radar operator in the State with a number of years experience.

Be forewarned however that you can be successfully prosecuted for unreasonable speed if you are at or below the posted limit if conditions warrant. Case in point, you are in that same area in a dense fog or rain (you will have to pass awfully close to the MP boat for a reading, radar doesn't like those conditions) and extremely limited visibility, and you are doing 45 in a 45. This isn't an issue on a roadway as in most cases you will pass within feet of the radar unit. Do the same on the Lake and you will be facing different or additional charges!

Still not going to take a side in this debate, but I have been greatly disturbed by the misinformation and hyperbole expressed on both sides of the issue in reference to the technical and legal aspects of the proposed legislation.

As always, please feel free to PM me anytime if you have specific legal or technical questions...if I can't get you a direct and correct answer I'll point you in the direction of someone that can!

Debate away.....

Skip

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Skip

The proposed law this year is in the same format as previous proposals, the speed limit will be a "prima facie" limit based on the unreasonable speed concept and not an "absolute" limit, as found in nearby Maine.

The difference? Significant to law enforcement personnel.

In Maine and other States that have "absolute" speed limits, it is an accepted concept that regardless of conditions any speed over the posted limit is proof of guilt.

In New Hampshire the proposed boating speed limits will be based on the same principles as our terrestial limits, the "prima facie" and "unreasonable speed" concept.

Simply stated, while any spped over the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence that an offense has occured, the operator can use an affirmative defense that given the time, place and conditions the speed at the time was not "unreasonable".

Let's say that it is 5:00 PM on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of the Broads. Its a bright and clear day with unlimited visibility. Its only you and the MP radar boat. You will not receive a ticket for 46 in a 45 unless that poor MP officer never wants to face the wrath of that particular court again.

It is a pretty poorly kept secret that in New Hampshire, depending on the Department, the leeway under normal conditions to succesfully get a conviction before a Municipal Court judge is anywhere from 10 to 15 MPH over the posted limit.

How would I know? Been there, done that on the prosecution side many, many times...and as some of you already suspected I am a certified radar operator in the State with a number of years experience.

Be forewarned however that you can be successfully prosecuted for unreasonable speed if you are at or below the posted limit if conditions warrant. Case in point, you are in that same area in a dense fog or rain (you will have to pass awfully close to the MP boat for a reading, radar doesn't like those conditions) and extremely limited visibility, and you are doing 45 in a 45. This isn't an issue on a roadway as in most cases you will pass within feet of the radar unit. Do the same on the Lake and you will be facing different or additional charges!

Still not going to take a side in this debate, but I have been greatly disturbed by the misinformation and hyperbole expressed on both sides of the issue in reference to the technical and legal aspects of the proposed legislation.

As always, please feel free to PM me anytime if you have specific legal or technical questions...if I can't get you a direct and correct answer I'll point you in the direction of someone that can!

Debate away.....

Skip

Skip...you had me at Prima Facie!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Skip...you had me at Prima Facie!

Good one!

But really, in everyone's defense....unless you've slugged this out in the trenches it is very difficult for the layman to appreciate the nuances of the law, especially here in the "Live Free or Die State". In reality, I would guess that very few of you have spent a day defending yourself in Court over a minor traffic offense.

I'll hold back a little longer on the synopsis I have formulated as to how this particular statute will play out if enacted as proposed...mainly cause I've got a kick out of reading a lot of the give and take here.

But reading some of your responses, I think a number of you would do very well presenting a case in front of many of the judges I have had the honor of appearing before over the years....

[Bear Islander]

My layman's interpretation of what Skip just said is, if you are out in the middle of the Broads, all by yourself, going 60 (or even more) in an otherwise safe manner, the chances you will get a ticket are near zero. And I have no problem with that.

One reason a boating violation will show up on your driving record is because the opposition took a "NO LIMITS" attitude and refused to work toward a compromise. Had they been more reasonable, we might have had legislation that made more of us happy. Or at least less unhappy.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

One reason a boating violation will show up on your driving record is because the opposition took a "NO LIMITS" attitude and refused to work toward a compromise. Had they been more reasonable, we might have had legislation that made more of us happy. Or at least less unhappy.

Maybe I missed it , but I don't remember seeing YOU willing to compromise on anything. Like maybe 60/15 day/night speed , which to me , makes a whole lot more sense.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I could possible get clocked going 46 and that according to the law is reason enough to give me a ticket. OK so I get a ticket and if that's not bad enough it also goes on my NH driving record. ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?!? and yes I'm yelling about this!! I can't believe that NH is also going to punish me by points on my drivers license for an infraction on my boat. Is that even legal? You do NOT I repeat DO NOT even need a valid drivers license to operate a boat on NH waters, just a valid Safe Boating Certificate (and I won't even get into the confusion on that).

As an avid opposer, I am actually not that upset about a boating infraction going against my license. I agree that it is ridiculous that they would put this into effect since it is only necessary to have a boating certificate. I think that the points should only be issued on certain offenses though, and there should be a spread as to the # of points per violation type as per the existing rules on the road. Violating the 150' rule for instance should be punishable, however given that MP never seems to stop for this I don't think it will have much effect. According to the law on the road you could get ticketed for 1mph over but you don't. When was the last time you or anyone you know was busted for 1mph over? Or the infamous 3mph over for that matter?

This would not be my main concern. The speed limit itself and the overall need for it is.

Originally Posted by hottrucks

Oh wait my boat doesn't even have one......who's going to shell out $$ for ALL the boats that don't have them or are inacurate.....

I would like one of those nice dash mounted ones with big #'s please

I'll take a GPS speedo with a tattletale, that way I can tell if my pontoon can truly do 3mph over the limit during the day

[Bear Islander]

I have been married for 31 plus years. Obviously I can compromise!

Compromise is how you get things done in most cases. I have said from the beginning I want a horsepower limit not a speed limit. My second choice would have been a 60/30 speed limit. But nobody went with that.

So I had to compromise and support 45/25.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...One reason a boating violation will show up on your driving record is because the opposition took a "NO LIMITS" attitude and refused to work toward a compromise. Had they been more reasonable, we might have had legislation that made more of us happy. Or at least less unhappy...

I agree, and also want to point out that this will, over time, prove to weaken the proposed law.

There are very clear cut and well accepted principles (whether we agree with them or not) for the determination of particular speed zones in the State. And while there is little dispute that gross offenses such as Reckless Operation & Boating or Driving While Intoxicated violations cross all boundaries for reporting purposes whether on OHRVs, snowmobiles & motor vehicles the lines are very blurred when you are now dealing with a boat speed limit.

Remember, judges are human beings, and virtually all of the judges I have dealt with over the years are very fair & understanding human beings, especially at the District/Municipal Court level. If you get a ticket for a boat speed limit infraction and you have an otherwise "clean" motor vehicle record, many judges will be hesitant to assess points on your driver's record for a recreational speeding offense. As it stands now, many judges will simply place an offense on file with no finding if you appear before them and plea your case.

Now, if you already have a lengthy motor vehicle record and come in with a boat speeding ticket, that same common sense the judge let prevail on the innocent or "placed on file" verdict the good guy got just in line ahead of you, well...don't expect the same courtesy.

This will also open up potential conflicts with neighboring states that have reciprocal agreements with New Hampshire regarding the reporting and points over "traffic" offenses. While speeding on a roadway in NH is akin to speeding on a roadway in, say, Maine....boating and highway speeding are definitely apples & oranges. If Maine and other States that do not recognize boating speed limits balk at including NH boating offenses in their data bases, there is nothing the State of New Hampshire can do. Likewise a Maine resident (or any resident that's State does not have reciprocal boating points offenses) will be able to easily petition their respective Motor Vehicle Department to have any such NH bases annotations removed.

One of the issues that was so difficult in implementing nationwide reciprocity (and we're still not there yet) is the lack of a universal motor vehicle code across the States. One of the fears in implementing and maintaining the system is when an individual State defines an act as a reportable offense that some or many of the reciprocal States do not recognize.

Bear Islander is being painfully honest is his assertation that: "...One reason a boating violation will show up on your driving record is because the opposition took a "NO LIMITS" attitude and refused to work toward a compromise. Had they been more reasonable..."

While that is an honest appraisal of the situation, it would be hard to characterize it as a rational or well thought out policy. The devil is always in the details, and this detail may prove to be very "devilish" when boating points are attempted to be tied to out-of-state license holders.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have said from the beginning I want a horsepower limit not a speed limit.

It is very common that big bass boats with 250 hp outboards will put in a lake and just use their bow mounted electric motor to go fishing. This is especially true for smaller lakes. Horsepower limits is a horrible idea! It would deny many bass boats from access.

Who would decide what the horsepower limit would be and on what lakes or rivers? My bass boat is 22 ft. and weighs in at 4,000 lbs. fully loaded with livewell water, 50 gal. of fuel, gear, 2 adults, and 4 deep cycle batteries. It takes 250 hp just to lift all this and get it up on plane.

Horsepower rating on a watercraft is mainly based upon size (length & width) and weight. Therefore, if you had your way by limiting horsepower, you might as well be banning all large boats. Is that really what you want to do?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Dick

It is very common that big bass boats with 250 hp outboards will put in a lake and just use their bow mounted electric motor to go fishing. This is especially true for smaller lakes. Horsepower limits is a horrible idea! It would deny many bass boats from access.

Who would decide what the horsepower limit would be and on what lakes or rivers? My bass boat is 22 ft. and weighs in at 4,000 lbs. fully loaded with livewell water, 50 gal. of fuel, gear, 2 adults, and 4 deep cycle batteries. It takes 250 hp just to lift all this and get it up on plane.

Horsepower rating on a watercraft is mainly based upon size (length & width) and weight. Therefore, if you had your way by limiting horsepower, you might as well be banning all large boats. Is that really what you want to do?

FYI- Bear Islander's proposal was to allow motors under 300hp only, starting with model year 2008 I believe so this would not be an issue for you. You are on the right track as far as where the idea was headed...

[fatlazyless]

Agreed, a horse power limit is not really needed as the 45-25 speed limit, with its recent very strong, House of Representatives, vote confirmation of 236-111, lets the boat-buyer choose for themself to power up, or to power down.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Skip,
If you don't need a drivers license to drive a boat do you think it would be reasonable to leave it home and only present a boating certificate? Would it do any good? Can't wait for the kids to get stopped going 50 on a PWC which will drive our insurance rates up.

Will have to learn to have fun in a perpendicular to land kind of way. Much safer?

[fatlazyless]

If HB-847 becomes law and you really miss the bad old days when you could legally go 107mph in a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee, you'll still have the option of doing that in a snowmobile, a car, motorcycle, pickup truck, suv, minivan, or motorized skateboard, as long as it cannot float and be considered a vessel. Ditto that for ice sailboats. While NH has a land speed limit of 45mph for snowmobiles, unless otherwise posted, it has no sno-mo speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, because it is not land, and HB-847 does not apply to sno-mos.

Let's see here, 107mph subtract 62=45mph. Hey, just how slow is that?

[chipj29]

I am not sure you are correct about snowmobiles Les. On land there is a 45 mph limit for sleds, and as far as I know, that applies to most lakes/ice as well. The only lake that has a different speed limit that is specified is Turtletown Pond in Concord, which is 55.

I could be wrong, but that is how I interpret it.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am not sure you are correct about snowmobiles Les. On land there is a 45 mph limit for sleds, and as far as I know, that applies to most lakes/ice as well. The only lake that has a different speed limit that is specified is Turtletown Pond in Concord, which is 55.

I could be wrong, but that is how I interpret it.

Chip...

FLL is correct... there is no snowmobile speed limit on most NH lakes... Turtletown Pond and Back Lake are two examples...


Woodsy

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Chip...

FLL is correct... there is no snowmobile speed limit on most NH lakes... Turtletown Pond and Back Lake are two examples...


Woodsy

Interesting...I had completely misinterpreted that.

Just think, I was going slow for no reason!