US Coast Guard on Speed and Accidents

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

{snip} 28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Fine then ... I will propose that the maximum speed allowed on the lake be no wake speed (NWS). Seems pretty plain to me that any speed above NWS has the potential to cause injury or death and so any speed above NWS is therefore unsafe. Safer is slower ! I bet I can find more than 1 case where someone was killed (and many more injured) at a speed above NWS and I'll cite these as proof positive that only NWS is proper and any higher speed is bad. Anything else is quibbling !! How does this sound ?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Wow, real numbers and they don't support a speed limit, what a surprise!!!!

Thanks Woodsy.....

[Ski Man]

Woodsy,
I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

In order for speed be a "Safety Issue", as the Winnfabs claim it is, one would need statistics and facts to bolster that claim. The problem is, there aren't any statistics or facts that bolster your claim. I ask again, if you have those facts or statistics, please post them.

How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We have speed limits on our roads, because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents and fatalities.

Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right? I'm sure many excitement loving car drivers fought our highway speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We in NH have speed limits on our snowmobile trails because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents.

And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We in NH do not have a helmet law for motorcyclists, even though it has been statistically proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We in NH do not have a seatbelt law for automobiles, even though they have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Island Lover...

I did make a mistake. I forgot Bear Lover started this thread with one page of the U.S. Coast Guard Report. However, it was the Anti HB-162 crowd that originally posted the link to the report, and the Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. Sorry about that.

You are wrong in your assessment of my opinion in regards to the USCG report. I am in complete agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard. The reality is, numbers don't lie, they are neither fair nor unfair, they just are.

I agree with USCG report, in that Excessive Speed is the #4 cause of accidents in the U.S. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating fatalities. I pointed that out in my post above. Then the Coast Guard on page 44 of the report did an analysis of the accidents as they relate to the speed of the boat.

Not Moving – 810 accidents – 66 fatalities
Under 10 MPH – 1242 accidents – 163 fatalities
10 to 20 MPH – 1020 accidents – 40 fatalities
21 to 40 MPH – 933 accidents – 49 fatalities
Over 40 MPH – 137 accidents – 14 fatalities
Unknown – 2583 accidents – 344 fatalities

You state “28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI. This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!” You go on to state “I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them” That is something only a closed minded person would say. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.

Yet another interesting statistic from Page 44 of the U.S. Coast Guard Report….

Of the 6725 boats involved in the 4904 reported accidents, 1013 of them were rental boats, 15%!

Of the 676 recorded fatalities, 92 of them were in rented boats, 13.5%!

Woodsy

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The cleanup started this summer, because "The Word" had already gone out.

It started earlier than that. I was almost fooled into joining NHRBA last spring because they painted a pretty inviting picture of themselves, but then I got a flavor of the group from their forum, which was then open to join, and opted out. I recall a message there from their webmaster that the Marine Patrol Director Barrett was going to be joining the club and that posts were all going to be "cleaned up" to make the club appear professional. Then many of the posts disappeared.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Yet another interesting statistic from Page 44 of the U.S. Coast Guard Report….

Of the 6725 boats involved in the 4904 reported accidents, 1013 of them were rental boats, 15%!

Of the 676 recorded fatalities, 92 of them were in rented boats, 13.5%!

Woodsy

Wow! I figured rentals would be over represented but that's just plain shocking.

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

the Coast Guard on page 44 of the report did an analysis of the accidents as they relate to the speed of the boat.

Not Moving – 810 accidents – 66 fatalities
Under 10 MPH – 1242 accidents – 163 fatalities
10 to 20 MPH – 1020 accidents – 40 fatalities
21 to 40 MPH – 933 accidents – 49 fatalities
Over 40 MPH – 137 accidents – 14 fatalities
Unknown – 2583 accidents – 344 fatalities

Woodsy,
Are these the speeds of the "hitting" boat or the "hit" boat that the victims were in? How could 810 accidents have been caused by "hitting" boats that were "not moving"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any
explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

The reason they could not convict due to BWI , they didn't have the facts and figures the night of the accident!
USCG excess speed is defined as TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS and you know that but won't admit it.

The politcians , after hashing over the TRUE facts and figures , will have no choice but to reject HR162. The opponents have done their homework well. It's all but a done deal .Next year you can bring up another bill


After all , 45 is hardly a fast speed

[Woodsy]

Ski Man...

You do not need the boat to be moving to have a fatality. There were 810 accidents resulting in 66 fatalities involving a boat that wasn't moving. There were 1479 collisions involving with other vessels, involving a total of 3003 boats, that resulted in 8 drownings and 60 other deaths. See page 36 of the USCG Report.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right?

To respond to your post, it is actually pretty simple. Every accident is a statistic. In every vehicular accident, pretty much since the dawn of motorized vehicles, accident statistics have been compiled. Factors such as the weather at the time of the accident, the speed at which the accident occurred, was the operator under the influence of alcohol or drugs, operator inattention, operator inexperience etc. These factors are all compiled and put into the statistical reports.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

Wrong again… We have a 45 MPH speed limit on our snowmobile trails BECAUSE it was STATISTICALLY PROVEN to be warranted. All of the snowmobile accidents were analyzed and the result was a speed limit of 45 on trails, and no speed limit at all on lakes. (with the exception of two). I read a pretty good article in the NHSA Sno-Traveler written by a Fish & Game police officer on this particular subject.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

Actually I wasn’t comparing the lack of a helmet law or seatbelt law to HB-162. They were mentioned as laws in other states that have been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to reduce death or injury, yet they are not laws here in NH.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

Ski Man, it is your constitutional right not to agree with me. I don’t have a problem with it at all.

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom without just cause.

Woodsy

PS: What type of skiier are you?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ski Man...

PS: What type of skiier are you?

Obviuosly, he doesn't ski barefoot. I love to ski barefoot and this law will not allow me to enjoy my favorite pastime. I'm hoping the kids can enjoy this but I guess not.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ski Man...
What type of skiier are you?

If it's a snow skier , I think the should be speed limits on them too. My wife was knocked unconsious be a SKI INSTRUCTOR of all people. She was standing perfectly still talking to a friend
It was also her last ski trip

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I recall a message there from their webmaster that the Marine Patrol Director Barrett was going to be joining the club and that posts were all going to be "cleaned up" to make the club appear professional. Then many of the posts disappeared.

Welcome Ski man to the debate. I was the one who wrote that message. My clean up was to remove those with inappropriate messages (NOT A SINGLE ACCIDENT post was removed). I did not want NHRBA's forum to be a bashing forum, but a constructive mechanism to discuss issues on the lake. You fault me for that?

And yes I wanted the Dir to participate in issues, he doesn't want to read threads of posts irrelavant to boatings issues. So I had a challenge at first to help guide some of our members on proper forum usage.

NHRBA will make a positive impact on our lakes with or without you, sorry you didn't want to stick around.

[overlook]

He still would have died if the speed was 25mph.

[Silver Duck]

A strong (and unsurprising) pattern seems to be emerging in this thread showing that BUI is a major contributing factor to boating accidents of all kinds.

Whether or not we, as individuals, support a speed limit could we all come to an agreement that it would be a good thing to get drunks off the lake? (I don't think that I've observed any party to this debate supporting the right to get behind the helm while blitzed, no matter what kind of boat that helm is attached to!)

Perhaps, while they're considering boating safety, the legislature could encourage the MP to instigate a major crackdown on BUI - whether or not a speed limit is enacted!

One other thing; if a speed limit is enacted, perhaps the supporters might want to encourage the legislature to provide some means other than high speed pursuit to nab violators. (Providing funding for helicopter surveilance might be an alternative). If the idea of speeds in excess of 45 mph is frightening, HB162 supporters should find the idea of high speed pursuit even more so!

Silver Duck

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

And yes I wanted the Dir to participate.

Is this proper for the Director of Marine "Safety" to be joining up with a GFBL association and at the same time helping them to fight against a safety initiative being supported by a huge majority of the citizens who are paying his salary? It certainly puts a lot of things in perspective and explains a lot of the odd things he was saying last year. This is one for the newspapers.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom

Sometimes we give bad things good names to hide what they really are. I think that calling the act of flying across a crowded lake at break-neck speeds a "freedom" is rather insulting to the word freedom. I guess under your definition, f_rting in church and p_ssing in the town pool would be "freedoms" too. Although I guess they are freedoms, technically, if they are things you've always been allowed to do and that you've come to enjoy, but they seem more like "obnoxious offenses" or "hazards" to me. They aren't the kind of things that come to mind when one generally adds up his real freedoms, like "speech" and "worship". Adding "driving real fast in my boat" to that list just doesn't seem appropriate.
People use to smoke in hospitals and sell cocaine before those "freedoms" were taken away too.
What other "freedoms" do you put in this high-speed boating class?
Sometimes we just have to be willing to sacrifice our "freedoms" for the common good.

Now on the other hand, when we talk about "rights", those should never be taken away...Like the "right" of NH's citizens to the safe use of their lakes.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in.

You may regret getting into this Ski Man. The small handful of people who try to steamroll this forum with their unlimited speed agenda always have to have the last word. They'll ridicule, insult and question your intelligence. They'll tell you what your motives are and ignore any sincere and thoughtful statements you make about your actual motives. No matter what you say Woodsy, winnilaker, Cal and Mee-n-Mac will tell you at length why you're wrong (usually within minutes) with the same tired arguments they have made a hundred times before (and no doubt a hundred times more).

They'll "play nice" here because they're forced to by the moderator but you only need to spend a few minutes on OSO and other forums to see their true colors. Note that one of their leaders, who also frequently posts here, has to continuously tell them that insulting and bashing your opponents does not help their cause. He has to do that because insulting and bashing HB162 supporters is SOP for many of them.

They'll never change their tactics and you'll never convince them. They will stop at nothing to protect their ability to drive their boats at unlimited speeds in a self-contained lake filled with mostly small family boats. Your time is much better spent writing to or calling your rep. In my humble opinion of course .

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

"...Woodsy, I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in...."

Wow. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. Clarity of thought, finally.

Most of the time my slogging feels like:

Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!

And you're right! They are digging themselves in deeper. I've actually been asked to provide "deleted" posts.

One of the most damaging has likely already been read by all NH Representatives, and was written by "Team Jefe". It can't be reproduced here, 'cause this is a family Forum. Wait! -- it hasn't been deleted. Maybe Woodsy will direct our attention to it?

Nah. Too many references to "adult beverages", adult activities on boats, and lots of "Hold muh beer, Cletus, ...'n watch thee'us!" moments.

An' speakin' of fuggedaboudit...

Originally Posted by Cal

HUH
Who removed what noise limits????

According to NJ Marine Police, noise testing had become too dangerous by 2003:

Letter from the Asbury Park Press 8-8-03
Noise testing had to change

I would like to respond to several articles printed lately concerning boating noise and speed.
The Boat Regulation Commission takes umbrage to the remark by William deCamp Jr. of Save Barnegat Bay, stating that "A step was taken backward today" after our July 9 meeting. He was referring to noise regulation 13:82-4.2 (a), which states: "No person shall operate or give permission for the operation of any vessel or watercraft capable of emitting noise totaling in excess of 90 dba in or upon the waters of this state."

In order to check the allowable decibel level, it was required that the boat being checked would pass by the Police Boat at the highest speed possible. This was so dangerous that senior officers would not allow it. The second method used checked the boat at a dock, with the motor at "the lowest throttle setting in neutral gear." This could not produce conclusive results and has been discontinued.

90 dB is awful bad, but this gets even worse:

Regulation 13:82-4.3 on muffling devices states: "Every outboard motor, inboard or inboard/outboard motor in use or attached to a vessel operating on the waters of this state shall be equipped with a muffling system as supplied by the manufacturer or installed by the owners."
As the pass-by and the dock test did not produce the results needed, it was suggested by the commission that all reference to the dba testing be removed from the regulations. The muffler requirement is to remain.

At the same time, the State Police have been placing "slow speed-no wake" buoys where needed. We believe that these two methods will both quiet the boats and also slow then down where necessary.

This was not the step backward. It was to clean up the regulations to obtain the results needed.

Roger Brown
CHAIRMAN
N.J. STATE BOAT REGULATION COMMISSION

"Save Barnegat Bay" only wanted a speed limit. They lost the speed limit battle, then went on to lose the noise WAR!

"The results needed?" Geez...

Hey, this was rejected by the NJ State-Motto-Contest:

New Jersey: To Live here, is to Die Here.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack,

There is a BIG differences between personal fredoms and rights. Personal freedoms are just that, freedoms. They are subject to change. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and are irrevocable... unless your talking guns... but thats a whole other debate! Speech and Worship are Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Farting in church, however distasteful, is a freedom. Last I checked it wasn't illegal. Urinating in the town pool is illegal and subject to arrest under public urination statutes, or perhaps indecent exposure statutes. I think public urination in Laconia will net you a $300 fine. There are probably a few more statutes the police can use in that instance.

I have no problem sacrificing a personal freedom for the common good. However, you need to justify taking my personal freedom away. To date there has been all sorts of wrangling back and forth, yet the Pro HB-162 crowd and Winnfabs has yet to produce ANY hard numbers, from an official government document that justifies taking away my freedom! When you can produce those numbers and subsequent statistics, then I will be willing to change my mind and give up my freedom.

Boater...

Ouch... I am sorry you feel that way. I really and truly am.

When you try to institute a law or policy that severely restrict an individuals personal freedoms, the reaction from those most affected by the proposed regulation is negative at best, downright nasty at its worst. This is effect is compounded when the proposed restriction is not based on facts or statistics, but on emotion. We have all sorts of laws that limit our personal freedoms. All of those laws were passed based on prior factual evidence.

I have used facts and statistics published by the USCG and the NTSB in my argument against HB-162. I have not ridiculed or insulted anyone. I play nice on all of the websites I post on, and I respect everyones opinion. I do not post insults, or tell people to mind thier own state like others here have. I go out of my way to defend the positions of some of the Pro HB-162/Winnfabs crowd. My argument is not a "tired" argument, nor is it emotional. It is a passionate factual argument, supported by facts and statistics gleaned from official government documents. The numbers do not lie. I am sorry you don't like the way the numbers align. I have repeatedly asked your side to post thier facts, post thier statistics. I have asked again and again to post the whole story when posting about boat accidents. Bolster your argument that Lake Winnipesaukee and NH NEEDS a speed limit. To date they have posted 2 documents, the one page from the 2004 USCG report (originally posted by an NHRBA member) and the other a "Public Service" article published by the USCGA. The PSA from the USCGA had "Speed Kills" in the title, however, the article was about striking a sumerged object.

I personally have no problem with the R,R & D minority opinion on HB-162. I think NH should adopt the USCG standard which is the same as the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea, also known as COLREGS.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I think that is a fair compromise for both sides. I would like to see some sort of funding package passed for the Marine Patrol as well. It would be a good thing for them to hire a few more officers. The mere presence of the MP boats in the congested parts of Lake Winnipesaukee has a distinct calming effect.

APS... Feel free to post the link to the adventures of Team Jefe. There are quite a few of them on the Donzi forum, most involve offshore salt water fishing and some sort of hot looking girl. He is from Texas, thats the way they are down there. He is an exceptionally good friend of mine regardless of whatever buffoonery he may partake. The really funny thing is he doesn't drink.. he can't. Severe stomach issue. But whatever, feel free to post it! I can ping him an e-mail so he can log on and tell you the stories himself if you would like. He actually trailered his 30' Fishing Boat from Houston Texas to Lake Winnipesaukee, just to boat here. It doesn't go faster than 52-55 MPH.

As far as noise regs go, I don't have a problem with revisiting them.


Woodsy

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"Save Barnegat Bay" only wanted a speed limit. They lost the speed limit battle, then went on to lose the noise WAR!

A bunch of sailboaters on Barnegat Bay wanted a "statewide" speed limit on ALL inland tidal waters , not just Barnegat Bay. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to fix what isn't broke.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Boater

You may regret getting into this Ski Man. The small handful of people who try to steamroll this forum with their unlimited speed agenda always have to have the last word. They'll ridicule, insult and question your intelligence. They'll tell you what your motives are and ignore any sincere and thoughtful statements you make about your actual motives. No matter what you say Woodsy, winnilaker, Cal and Mee-n-Mac will tell you at length why you're wrong (usually within minutes) with the same tired arguments they have made a hundred times before (and no doubt a hundred times more).
{snip}

So when I post anti-HB162 I'm "steamrolling" and when others post pro-HB-162 they're just discussing ? Since you've listed my name specifically I'd like you to bring forth my posts that have ridiculed, insulted or questioned anyone's intelligence. I've tried to be pretty calm in this debate but if I've failed let me know. If you recall we own a 24' Wellcraft non-gofast boat. I've not called for unlimited speed in any discussion of this issue, now or in years past. Lastly if my arguments are "tired" it's partly because I keep having to drag them out to refute that "Littlefield" has any factual bearing on a speed limit.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Wow. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. Clarity of thought, finally.

Most of the time my slogging feels like:
{snip}

Gee I thought I usually stated my reasons for disagreeing, didn't realize I was being so simplistic. Since you appreciate SM's clarity, I'd like to direct your (and other's) attention to his point about how HB-162 is not about protecting GFBL boaters from themselves. Next time anyone feels like dragging in some single boat accident not involving anyone else, breathe some fresh air instead.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Gee I thought I usually stated my reasons for disagreeing, didn't realize I was being so simplistic. Since you appreciate SM's clarity, I'd like to direct your (and other's) attention to his point about how HB-162 is not about protecting GFBL boaters from themselves. Next time anyone feels like dragging in some single boat accident not involving anyone else, breathe some fresh air instead.

Let's stay on subject;
Did you read that article in the Citizen yesterday about how well the speed limits there are working?
And what do you think of Rep Whalley's attempts to use a noise bill to undermine HB162?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

A bunch of sailboaters on Barnegat Bay wanted a "statewide" speed limit on ALL inland tidal waters , not just Barnegat Bay. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to fix what isn't broke.

Something was "broke" at Lake George, and it sure was "broke" to the "bunch" at Barnegat Bay.

Lake George is presently "fixed", while New Jersey remains...well...New Jersey.

New Jersey: The Superfund State

While accidents were going down, fatalities were shooting up: Off the coast, a cruiser running at top speed ran down fishermen in a 20-foot boat. Three brothers died together in their GFBL.

Those were alarming headlines to read about in one season.

But here's the "Marine Mafia" talk that shot down New Jersey's boating speed limit. (New Jersey's restrictive boating-noise laws were the next to fall to monied interests).

"...You need to get organized, hire a law firm/lawyer and start writing/e-mailing/phone calling your state reps. Is there (sic) any major political races happening in NJ this Nov.? What are the Hi-Performance Marinas saying about this? Are they even aware of this issue? If not, get them up to speed ASAP! Look at these websites to see how we approach waterway restrictions.
www.standing-watch.org
www.cfw.org
This effort won't be cheap, so you need to prepare to "Step up" with $$$$$!

Starting a Non-Profit "New Jersey Boaters Rights" group will make this less costly, and add credibility to your cause."

Now, what group would be analogous to "New Jersey Boaters' Rights"? The NHRBA?

Isn't NJ "Hi-Performance Marinas" analogous to NH "Whalley's" monied interests?

BTW: "Standing-Watch", and "cfw" are currently devoted to removing speed limits from endangered marine-mammal habitat.

Since humans aren't endangered, Winnipesaukee only has loons to worry about. I mean the waterfowl-kind.

_______________________

"Know" Limits...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Gee I thought I usually stated my reasons for disagreeing, didn't realize I was being so simplistic. Since you appreciate SM's clarity, I'd like to direct your (and other's) attention to his point about how HB-162 is not about protecting GFBL boaters from themselves. Next time anyone feels like dragging in some single boat accident not involving anyone else, breathe some fresh air instead.

A single boat accident always involves someone else -- passenger or hapless rescuer. A hapless Laconia rescuer is the most important reason we voted in the anti-"skimming" law of 2005.

You're not concerned for Heidi? ...at DonziRegistry.com?

"...I caught a big cruiser wake and did a little Superman act of my own. I think I scared Heidi a little, but she was a trooper and held on as beverage cans went flying all over the place. We made it to Weirs in no time flat..."

In disagreeing, I find myself reading reasons that either obfuscate, complicate, or merely "don't compute". I also don't understand defending a "Viva yo" attitude on Winnipesaukee, either. (Viva yo is "HOORAY FOR ME!" noted by author James Michener in Iberia)

Winnipesaukee's quaint 150-foot rule is now obsolete -- made so by "Progress": (Multiple 1100-HP engines, and still counting...).

It's not just horsepower:

It's not illegal to have a DVD screen mounted in the dashboard -- next to the GPS and radar screens, twenty gauges, multiple throttles, trim controls, radio, tilt controls, VHF, and stereo controls. It's not illegal to "drive" using one's feet. You can carry six cases of beer on board (or vodka, the odorless choice of speedboaters). Or, as I pointed out earlier, a shotgun or Beretta. Will these beer-swillers be voting against a speed limit? You can legally mount cruise-control on your boat, for those too-long stretches across the Broads to the Naswa. Until last year, boaters could leave the scene of one's injurious- and death-causing Winnipesaukee collisions -- and not go to prison. You can travel at 150-MPH if you want.

You never cleared up "TUNNEL VISION" -- a concept that no Opponent has acknowledged here.

When a boater races along at 60MPH, there is only one boat on the water. Why? Because his attention is only forward: Instant Captain "B".

You may not have noticed that every photograph I took this summer near krwxcr700 had the "drivers" having to stand and look directly forward. (That is, when they and their passengers could see over the bow at all). Should a smaller boat approach from afar, it will be ignored UNTIL IT GETS TOO CLOSE. This is the "Instant Captain B" concept. Captain "B" is oblivious to the lesser "stand-on" boat and unintentionally fails to acknowledge its importance. It's krwxcr700, you'll recall, who alleges -- to borrow Wordsy's synonym for mendacity -- to have been "buzzed" by speedboaters while fishing.

That's why the 150-foot rule has become obsolete -- and hugely unenforced -- on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake George's speed limit is due to never having had a "150-foot rule" to enforce! 'You suppose Lake George boaters viewed 150-MPH boats -- or 4½ ton speedboats -- as a hazard? Should they have instituted a 150-foot rule instead? I don't theenk so....

New Hampshire is now having to play its usual catch-up legislative game.

You don't know you can buy a BMW sedan with 500+ HP off the showroom floor that will do 200-MPH? ...On American roads? Or that Mercedes offered a 600-HP sedan this year in response? At least Porsche offers driving schools for Americans who buy Porsches: Porsches, which are electronically-governed to speed along at "only" 155-MPH. Or that new 115-foot yacht offered today that will do 57-MPH?

On inland protected waters, I call this wretched excess.

****

Here are a few of your arguments -- the first not so much simplistic as self-indulgent:

"...given that rules are preferential to kayaks and sailboats, I have a better chance of making it to the dock today with the 1000 PWCs..."

And I did leave out obfuscatory parts:

So I call a registration fee a tax, you can call it a poodle if you wish.

or,

Will they be Chihuahuas next year ?

To this day, I remain confused and unclear on the above quotes, and evermore appreciative of Clarity.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Let's stay on subject;
Did you read that article in the Citizen yesterday about how well the speed limits there are working?
And what do you think of Rep Whalley's attempts to use a noise bill to undermine HB162?

I just did read the article. It said nothing new to me. So how much safer is LG with (vs w/o) the speed limit ? Could the limit be higher and less discriminatory ? As to Whaley's bill ... how could it undermine HB-162 ? I'm told all support for HB-162 comes from people afraid to boat on the lake, not people concerned about noise. Moreover I find it marginally intriguing (though just) that people who question Pilliod's motives based upon his words are chastised while questioning Whalley's motives is OK. The true questions to ask are; is HB-162 good law, is HB-1624 (?) good law.

[Island Lover]

Mee-n-Mac

I don't know what Rep. Whalley's motives are. I don't know if his method of monitoring noise is an improvement or not.

What I question is the timing. Suddenly this other bill is getting a lot of attention. Its a diversion tactic.

Here we are on a special forum set up just for HB162. Yet in the last days before a vote on HB162, we are taking about a noise limit bill.

If you can't win the argument, then change the subject. And the opposition can't win the argument.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

It was Fat Jack, a Pro HB-162 person who originally brought up Rep. Whalley and questioned his motives in regards to the newly proposed noise bill in another thread. It was not Mee-n-Mac.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...APS... Feel free to post the link to the adventures of Team Jefe...He actually trailered his 30' Fishing Boat from Houston Texas to Lake Winnipesaukee, just to boat here. It doesn't go faster than 52-55 MPH.

Here's Team Jefe at Winnipesaukee:

"...Those of you who have had the unequalled pleasure of riding in Jefe’s Revenge with me at the helm know exactly how I turned around. But, for those who have not had that pleasure, imagine cruising along at 50+mph, and your captain saying “hang on” as he gets a devilish grin on his face, then reefs the helm round as tight as it will go. The boat slams up on it side and turns in a radius of about 50 feet. at 50 MPH, no slip, no spin-out, just boom and we were going the other way..."

OK to quote deleted posts?

___________________
"Know" Limits ...

[Woodsy]

APS...

How is that post fron Jefe an issue? He didn't do anything inherently unsafe.
Do explain?

Woodsy

[ApS]

Maybe it's because here's no slamming or booming on my boats. That quote falls into the category: "Hold muh beer, 'n watch this".

Perhaps "slamming" and Booming" should have been seen in the context of this following Winnipesaukee activity at the Donzi Registry:

"...hits a wave and launches into the air. HOLY Soaring Eagles Batman. I’m talking completely outta the water, airborne, I saw props for several seconds. This was a poster shot...I caught a big cruiser wake and did a little Superman act of my own. I think I scared ***** a little, but she was a trooper and held on as beverage cans went flying all over the place. We made it to Weirs in no time flat."

Beverage cans?

Doesn't everybody say "beverage" cans?



___________________
"Know" Limits ...

[Paugus Bay Resident]

APS,

Noticed this in your signature,

The 150' rule is obsolete and unenforceable.

If you believe this about a fundemental rule that effects all powerboaters, then how can a speed limit be enforced? Inquiring minds want to know ....

[ApS]

We've already read that some speedboaters intend to break the new law, regardless.
We've already read that Director Barrett may—or may not—enforce the law.

That doesn't mean laws should not be enacted.

The neighborhood that enacted this speed limit [picture below] now lives a quiet, safe, and laid-back existence. The community is an area greater than 18 square miles and has over 100 miles of 2-lane blacktop roads whose speeds are controlled by this blanket speed limit: 25-MPH.

Dump trucks there, however:
1) ignore, even double, the speed limit to haul gravel within this same community.
2) because of their political clout, are "effectively immune" to local police control.
3) will fill your rear-view mirror with their grill should you obey the law.
4) are responsible for most of the prior fatalities.

The speed limit has won wide residential support—and the usual noisy and well-funded detractors. (The gravel pit industry and dump truck industry are among the detractors).

Supporters carry bumper stickers to exhort violators to "Observe the Limit—or Leave". (And, fortunately, are laid-back enough not to give the "Winnipesaukee Salute", so often mentioned at the GFBL forums).

A huge state roadside sign leading to the community reads, in part, "Speed Kills".

The effort wasn't to save the lives of school children; in fact, the locals can only tell you that they've had tangible results—certainly more spectacular results than Lake George's speed limit, for sure.

The point: Even with law enforcement's blind eye, residents love the new speed limit, and the mostly-outsider "Monied Interests" hate it. Sorta like HB162!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

APS,

Noticed this in your signature,

If you believe this about a fundemental rule that effects all powerboaters, then how can a speed limit be enforced? Inquiring minds want to know ....

Demanding minds don't know.

They just want it THEIR way , right or wrong necessary or not , enforcable or not. They are more than willing to give up another freedom that someone else (not they) enjoy. Just be careful what you wish for. One thing leads to another and can come back to bite YOU in the

[Woodsy]

APS...

Jefe does not drink. Those were soda cans and empty bottled water containers. You are trying to make something out of nothing. I am sure you can find plenty of other examples where people were actually consuming alcoholic beverages.

The Donzi Poker Run that year was run during on a grey rainy day with some rough water. There were quite a few small boats, Donzi 18 & 22 Classics to be exact that got bounced around quite a bit. The NHMP shadowed the run in its entirety with one of thier RIBs. There were no 150' violations or any tickets issued by the NHMP.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

APS...Jefe does not drink. Those were soda cans and empty bottled water containers.

I'm impressed! My own recollections about such things usually only go back a day or two -- certainly not back to 2004. "Jefe" goes on to say:

"...Well W----- and W----- don’t wait in lines. This is their town, and we are their guests so we strolled right in past the line (and several dirty looks). When we got inside there was a cover charge….Cover? what do you mean cover? These boys don’t pay no stinking cover either…..It’s nice to have the help of the local talent..."

As I imbibe infrequently, I've never paid "cover" nor "strolled right past" anybody! Still, I wonder about those who would treat others near—or on—Winnipesaukee with such disdain.

And WHO would restrict boat type?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42619
("Guess-who?" favors a limit on a boat-type)?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There is a perception that all owners of High Performance boats are essentially lawless cowboys.

On Winnipesaukee, Donzi GFBLs call themselves "The Donzi Bandits", right? (Not Cowboys, Heaven forbid) These might be instructive:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=51030
("What's so wrong with a cold beer?")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45526
("Can't keep 150-foot separation")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42597
("Marine Patrol - Help Us")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41878
(Cigs do donuts 50' off dock)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29427
(Won't keep cowboys from buzzing your dock).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=13622
("Donzis racing one another").
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42593
(July, 2002: "Some day someone will die...due to cowboys...")http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41838
(Donzi throws big wake returning to his buddies)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=27707
(Cigarette boat loses its transom in the Broads.)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=27452
(Bearmeister says [Cig] speed kills—in 2001!)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=27486
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29835
(FLL nails it 365 days before 2002 fatality-causer is nailed himself)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29720
(Reckless operation tears off outdrive of 28' "Noise boat")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=28163
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy — II)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45395
(Hobie girls passed by 110-MPH Tunnel-Hull)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45480
(Throttleman agrees with my speed estimate, above)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=43992
(M-n-M sees GFBL sunk suggests alcohol, not H2O)
http://www4.citizen.com/news2002/aug...e_0830a_02.asp
(2002 fatal crash by Citizen shows "Not Found -- 404 Error" today)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41958
(FLL "thinks small" on weight, horsepower, speed, and decibels)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41958
(Baja Bob lectures forum on ROW -- wrongly)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=62808
(New Hampshire boating safety stats nearly as bad as Washington state's)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42585
(Aquadeziac, upset BEFORE Winnipesaukee's worst collision).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29832
(43-footer "Black Thunder" sinks in Broads)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=57570
(Fountain flips and crashes in Broads) Restrict them from The Broads?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29832
(Speedboat gets stuck between trees—in Wolfeboro)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=63437
(Cigarette enters cottage—three killed—at night)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=11075
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—III)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=11235
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—IV)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=11119
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—V)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=11286
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—VI)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=19327
(A Poker Run Is Not a Race—II)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The NHMP shadowed the run in its entirety with one of their RIBs. There were no 150' violations or any tickets issued by the NHMP.

Woodsy

What year? This post says that you have it all wrong: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29072
(Donzis run from the Marine Patrol).

Finally: Things should return to normal after HB162 achieves history: We forget about the importance of well-advised laws. Here's an "Olde Forum" nugget:

"Glad you guys were not around when they proposed to ban lead from paint or we'd all be too dumb to even have this conversation."

.

[Woodsy]

APS...

Wow... so now it gets personal.... I am actually pretty surprised! I really expected better from you. Too bad you actually stooped to this level. I guess I am not perfect like you Rob. I don't partake of personal attacks and mudslinging.

I am sorry to hear your recollections don't go back that far. I participated in the 2004 Donzi Poker Run as a guest on Jefe's boat. He towed that boat all the way from Houston, Texas just to boat on Lake Winni. There were absolutely NO ALCOHOLIC beverages of any kind on that boat. The MP's did shadow us the entire run in 2004, nobody was pulled over for any violations. Of course you wouldn't know because you weren't there. Though I suspect you were glued to the police scanner.

As far as the quote that you (politely) deleted my name from. Its ok as I have nothing to hide. The owners of the establishments that Jefe wrote about are friends of mine. I frequent the establishments in the Weirs year round and I spend my money there year round. I am considered to be a local, so in the summer when there is a line out the door to get in I usually stroll right past.

I fail to see how that is a disdain for others? It no different than frequent flyer miles or first class upgrades that the airlines give to thier best customers to show appreciation for thier business!

If you feel the need to go back 5 years to 2001 to find an old post, so be it. As far as my post about big cruisers, I stand by it. I haven't flip-flopped at all. I personally don't like the wakes generated by some of these behemoths. It because of those wakes I sold my 22' Donzi and and purchased a larger 26' Donzi. I respect thier choice to buy a big cruiser even if I don't like it. They (and the wakes they generate) will be the next target of choice to be sure.

As far as the Donzi Bandits nickname you brought up. Let me give you a bit of history. Its actually the Winni Bandits, not Donzi Bandits, and we are comprised of a bunch of friends. The name is tounge in cheek, similar to the nickname my parents gave my bunch of friends when I was growing up. It was given to us by a friend of mine from Michigan, when 5 of us trailered our boats from Lake Winnipesaukee to Lake Cumberland in KY. I guess in todays world you have to expect the small minded to take things in a literal sense and out of context.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=51030
Post Date 2003
You actually quoted a boater who spoke truthfully about a "handful of cowboys" I interpret that quote to mean a small number of people. Anyway, we no longer use the term "Cowboy" on the Winni forum anymore as it is no longer Politically Correct (PC). I think Don got a letter from some guys out west who threatened a lawsuit. The term we use now is Capt. Bonehead. I am not defending Baja Bob, however there is nothing wrong with A cold beer (singular)... There is plenty wrong with MANY cold beers (plural). Perhaps we should adopt a zero tolerance policy? At what point do we surrender all personal responsibility to the government?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45526 Post Date 2002
This post is about PWC's and Paugus Bay congestion. What does it have to do with HB-162? Oh wait.. they used the word "Cowboy" in thier post!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42597
Post Date: 2002
Another post about rude boaters. She used the word "Cowboy" too, although she didn't preface it with GFBL or any other moniker. Of course nowadays driving her little outboard boat into the wake of the Mount would be seriously frowned upon. There is a law against wake jumping now. Yet another post with nothing to do about HB-162.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41878
Post Date 2002
This post references an incident that occurred a few years prior to 2002. Nothing to do with HB-162, but plenty to do with reckless operation. Oh ya, they use the term "Cowboys" too.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29427
Post Date:2001
Another post using the word "Cowboy". Its in the context of a thread about the lake being crowded. Nothing to do with HB-162, but certainly 150' violations.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=13622
Post Date: 2000
Donzi's racing one another? Now I know you are really reaching! That is such a stretch! This post has nothing to do with Donzi's. It specifically mentions PWC's. (We don't call them Jet Ski's anymore as its not PC either)

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42593
Post Date:2002
I actually like this post. its a pretty good one. It also uses the word "Cowboy"

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=41838
Post Date:2002
I don't take issue with this post other than it doesn't use the word "Cowboy". The Capt. Bonehead operating this Donzi acted in a rude, inconsiderate and possibly illegal manner. I am sure if we search the archives we can find posts about many different brands of boats with a Capt. Bonehead at the wheel.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29072
Post Date: 2001
I posted my response here at this link...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29092
Actually the whole thread bears reading again. There are several references to different versions of the story. I am sure they all bear some truth.


Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Wow... so now it gets personal.... I am actually pretty surprised! I really expected better from you. Too bad you actually stooped to this level...Woodsy..."

Actually, permission was given to post the entire "Jefe" post from DonziRegistry.com.

It could not have been linked here in good conscience; moreover, it would not have remained posted here, as this is a family forum.

Wordsy's really been done a favor, and no reference to a real name has been made here.

It's not really a big effort to keep posts non-personal here: Notice the use of "Passive Voice"? One will see very few "I", "my", "you", or "yours", in the replies sent from this keyboard.

Besides, these past weeks have been instructive: Cal, for example, has earned a few notches for well-tempered responses from Cal's keyboard. Contrast those with this collection of Opponent revelations (paraphrased for maximum eye-rolling effect):

FACT: Radar doesn't work for boats.
FACT: 2002's most experienced boater would not have been affected by a speed limit.
FACT: No accidents involving speed have occurred on Winnipesaukee.
FACT: Horror stories aren't facts.
FACT: Mountainous lakes will echo less noise than flatland lakes.
FACT: Performance boats don't leave wakes.
FACT: NH salesmen won't sell you a boat with switchable exhaust.
FACT: All "Lakers" were noisy.
FACT: The deletion of posts from other sites don't mean anything.
FACT: Occurrences on other lakes are of no consequence.
FACT: Tres Martin's school is too far and expensive for performance boaters.
FACT: "Reasonable and prudent" has been found to be Constitutional.
FACT: Only performance boats will be discriminated against.
FACT: The faster the boat, the better the drivers can hold their liquor.
FACT: Speedboaters are being oppressed.
FACT: A collision at 90 is the same as a collision at 44.9 MPH.
FACT: There aren't enough boats on the lake.
FACT: Common sense will solve the speed problem.
FACT: One of the fastest boaters on Winnipesaukee has not benefited from the newest NWZ.
FACT: A site hosted by a Mass-person cannot be used to criticize out-of-state weekend boaters.
FACT: Nothing written here will influence anybody.
FACT: Records of Lake Winnipesaukee's speed-related crashes are readily available.
FACT: With the speed limit, speedboaters will be stopped from boating altogether.
FACT: Kayaks are the problem, not performance boats.
FACT: Cigarette boats know how to "play together" with other boaters.
FACT: Cabin cruisers are the real problem.
FACT: Winnipesaukee's "Most Experienced Boater for 2002" sped at exactly 28-MPH one night.
FACT: With a speed limit law, there will be fewer boats on the water.
FACT: Laws do not promote safety.
FACT: Elderly boaters are the problem, not speeders.
FACT: OSO has posted all of the collisions that have occurred.
FACT: BWI is a non-speed-related offense.
FACT: All the posts (50) are still there, and not deleted.
FACT: The most unlikely way that you will be killed is by a performance boat.
FACT: Lightning will kill more boaters than speeders will.
FACT: Speedboat sites that censor themselves aren't afraid of the facts.
FACT: Only posts with unsubstantiated or anecdotal evidence are being deleted.
FACT: Driver error or BWI should not be counted in performance boat crashes.
FACT: "NH fishermen will suffer because the Maine, Mass, fisherman do not have to obey speed laws in their states."
FACT: The 150-foot safe passage rule means Winnipesaukee doesn't need a speed limit.
FACT: Lake George has a speed limit, so it doesn't need a safe-passage law.
FACT: High speeds only occur on The Broads -- away from people.
FACT: In trying to reduce a wake, trim tabs will be ripped off,
FACT: "Speed Kills" is a meaningless phrase.
FACT: Director Barrett will not be able to enforce the new law.
FACT: Speed is #4 in accidents; however, reckless operation, inattention, and inexperience don't apply to performance boaters.
FACT: Stupidity is not against the law.
FACT: Emotion should not precipitate law-making.
FACT: Nixon was impeached.
FACT: Fewer vessels were involved in crashes in the category "over 40 MPH" than any other category -- including "not moving".

Finally: Will an "end-run" on HB162 occur in the next day or two? With "facts" like the above, who knows?

UPDATE: In this evening's extreme-boating news, I found this:

"ask woodsy how fast art and him went in the 57 boat...."

There is more than one "woodsy"? And if not, shouldn't we be advised of other risk-taking behaviors before accepting advice on HB162? The discussion topic was a new 200-MPH pleasure-speedboat! http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...1&postcount=23

.

[Cal]

APS,
Don't you worry about me , Don already does , so I can't "go trolling" to start trouble like you seem to enjoy.
All I have to say is , I take your last post as a personal insult , grouping me with all the others. I speak for myself

[Seaplane Pilot]

WASHINGTON Jan 18, 2006 — About one-third of the people killed in automobile crashes involving the nation's youngest drivers were pedestrians or occupants of other vehicles, according to a report released Wednesday.
For the rest of the story...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/wireStory?id=1516764

Maybe the NH legislature should focus on a real safety issue such as teen drivers (ban them altogether - more safety?), not a fabricated safety issue like the boat speed limits. I'm far less afraid of getting killed by a boat on Winnipesaukee going more than 45MPH than I am of these out of control teen drivers on the streets. Now, if we all went back to horse & buggy days...

[Woodsy]

APS...

You have tried to use Jefe's post in order to further your own agenda. I take a great offense to that as Jefe is my friend. I don't know how it is where you come from, but where I come from a man stands up for his friends.

As usual, you only tell part of the story and take quotes completely out of context. Your insinuations that the thread cannot be linked here in good conscience is absurd. As I have stated before, I have nothing to hide. Here is the link to the thread over on Donzi.net that contains the adventures of Jefe during the 2004 Donzi Poker Run. For those who are so inclined, its a pretty good (long) read, but nothing outrageous occurred. Just a bunch of friends from all over the country gathered here on Lake Winnipesaukee to have some fun. Jefe does tend to go on a bit much about the pretty girls, but thats Jefe, he likes pretty girls. The part about the "Bumpa Cars" is pretty funny. Too bad you don't know him, because then you would get the real sense of the story.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36923

I have no idea who the other "Woodsy" is. I have a different screen name over on OSO.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Okaaaa-ay, your call.

1) "Money talks?" Sorry, but this crowd comes across as seedy. http://www.donzi.net/forums/showpost...66&postcount=4

2) As for standing up for friends, "Winnipesaukee's Most Exerienced and Most Educated Speedboater for 2002" also had lots of people standing up for their friend. Many unknown to him. Why?

3)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I have no idea who the other "Woodsy" is. I have a different screen name over on OSO.

That's odd...he reads the same:

Re: 130 MPH NorTech on Winnipesaukee???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its good to see high perf isn't quite dead yet on the Lake....

Woodsy

No matter what happens in the next few days or weeks, it's the headlines that will keep this issue before the Winnipesaukee public.

4) "Safe Passage" isn't getting it done.
5) "Education" was a band-aid, proving marginal.
6) I can name you a scenic lake twice the size of Winnipesaukee that enacted a 10-MPH speed limit—just this year.
7) "Speed"—with or without alcohol—will drive the headlines, and the headlines will drive the Legislature.

If not now, later.