Citizen Article - The Other Side

[winnilaker]

Here's the other side of the story from those who oppose House Bill 162:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...055/-1/CITIZEN

[KonaChick]

Not all people love the "Miami Vice" quality that Lake Winnipesaukee seems to be turning into. Many people love the peace and tranquility that the lake has to offer. I look at it like a pendulum. It seems to have swung real far to the left (or right depending on your political persuasion) and the natural progression is for it to start swinging back the other way now..it's just what happens in life I've noticed in my short 41 years here on earth. Things get pushed real far to one side and soon enough there's no more room and the pendulum has to swing back!

[fatlazyless]

"If I had a canoe or kayak I'd sure as hell take it to another lake to enjoy it." Well, excuuuuuuuse me, but that is one humdinger of a line. If this were a political campaign with tv ads with one-liners, that would be a good line for the speed limit supporters to publicize.

[cowisl]

Thanks for posting. Its nice to see an article against hb 162

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"If I had a canoe or kayak I'd sure as hell take it to another lake to enjoy it." Well, excuuuuuuuse me, but that is one humdinger of a line. If this were a political campaign with tv ads with one-liners, that would be a good line for the speed limit supporters to publicize.

It sure sounds like Custie Crampton doesn't think the lake is safe for canoes and kayaks.

There is also this quote from Jack Irwin. "It's not Golden Pond ... if that's what you want then that's where you have to go. Winnipesaukee is an exciting lake and that's why people come here,"

Their complaint is that performance boats are being forced off the lake. Yet at the same time they are suggesting this is not the place for human powered craft.

This article does more to hurt their cause than help it. But they probably don't see that.

[codeman671]

Lets face it, this is a big lake and there is room for all but being that it is a big lake there are places that in my opinion kayaks or canoes should not go. Not due to boats or speed, simply weather/water conditions. We have all seen days when the broads are as rough or even rougher than the ocean. I personally saw numerous small skiffs, sunfish, kayakers and canoes that were far out in the lake on days where they should have stayed near shore. On two occasions we rescued people on flipped over sunfish and lasers on extremely rough, windy days near Diamond. They had no right being there...For their own safety that is. Sailboaters are not invincible!

I enjoy canoes and kayaks (although do not care for blowboats) and if people use common sense on both sides there is room for all. If these were my preferred method of transportation on the lake I would pick and choose my routes carefully. I would guess that accidents in small craft such as these are equal if not greater than larger boats, I am sure a simple search on the forum would substantiate this. Stop blaming GFBL's for running people off the lake!

[winnilaker]

If I may clarify, which you all may or may not care to hear.

"If I had a canoe or kayak I'd sure as hell take it to another lake to enjoy it."

I was talking about using canoes or kayaks on busy weekends. I said I sure as hell wouldn't use one on a weekend, I would take it some place less crowded and/or more peaceful. And I clarified it with an example, that I don't ride my motorcyle in Boston, I would choose to use it in back country roads instead.

And Island Lover, that is correct, there are times on weekends, places on the lake or depending on weather when I don't think it is safe to use canoes or kayaks on the lake. Any issue with that?


Hurt, ooch! Guess you didn't like the facts that were presented, huh? See what, must be over my head?

[jrc]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...&ppuser=9&sl=i

I don't think any law will make Winnipesaukee safe for everyone at all times. Unless you think we can outlaw wind? That law would get my full support.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

If I may clarify, which you all may or may not care to hear.
"If I had a canoe or kayak I'd sure as hell take it to another lake to enjoy it."
Hurt, ooch! Guess you didn't like the facts that were presented, huh? See what, must be over my head?

I have to thank WL for his intelligent comments in support of HB162. Surely his comments will sway anyone sitting on the fence that Winni is in dire need of a speed limit. No way should anyone use a canoe on the big lake and he is right we do not want Golden Pond on Winni when we can have GFLB’s to enhance the lake experience. Who wants to hear a loon when you can hear a GFBL and catch a fleeting glimpse of it as screams across the lake? I do not think anyone that is pro HB 162 could have articulated the issue as clearly as WL has done. Good job!!!!!!!!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

If I may clarify

I was actually quiet amused by the article, because I think it clarified things perfectly..."excitement" versus safety. Do we want Lake Winnipesaukee and NH to be the place to go for "excitement" or do we cherish our safety above unlimited fun and "excitement"? Telling people to go to other lakes if they want to be safe in common craft like kayaks and canoes and that they are effectively banned from New Hampshire's largest body of water, which many of them own, so that a small group (most often from out-of-state) can fly around it at break-neck speed for "excitement" really says it all. No further clarification needed.

Perhaps you can ask the Citizen to print a retraction?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I have to thank WL for his intelligent comments in support of HB162. Surely his comments will sway anyone sitting on the fence that Winni is in dire need of a speed limit. No way should anyone use a canoe on the big lake and he is right we do not want Golden Pond on Winni when we can have GFLB’s to enhance the lake experience. Who wants to hear a loon when you can hear a GFBL and catch a fleeting glimpse of it as screams across the lake? I do not think anyone that is pro HB 162 could have articulated the issue as clearly as WL has done. Good job!!!!!!!!

Speed limit or no speed limit, even if all the GFBL's left the lake there is still MANY more boats creating enough wake even at speeds under 45mph that would make canoeing or kayaking on the lake difficult, and this doesn't even take into effect weather patterns. IMHO if you want to enjoy a canoe or kayak then a more peaceful place (similar to the analogy used by Winnilaker about riding motorcycles in Boston) would make more sense to me. Nobody against the speed limit is discriminating against canoes or kayaks, unlike the HB162 supporters who certainly are discriminating against GFBL's. Who's the bigot here?

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

unlike the HB162 supporters who certainly are discriminating against GFBL's. Who's the bigot here?

No one is discriminating against anyone. Funny you should think so. I own 2 boats and both will travel faster than 45 MPH so I guess I am discriminating against myself? The simple common sense answer that slower is safer seems to fall on your sides deaf ears. Your replies I want to go faster because I want to is about all you say. I sure would love the extra time that a slower speed gives one to make a decision. A good boater keeps his head on a swivel but with excess speeds of some of the boats on the lake even that does not seem to be enough. Winnipesaukee has been hijacked by the minority who think it is their God given right to do whatever the want. . It was not that many years ago when a canoe was safe on this lake. The winds and weather are natural factors that affect all boaters. A person screaming across the lake at 70 +MPH is not necessary.

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Before you start name calling seems it is your side that seems a bit intolerant of the majorities opinion. I am still waiting for your side to make a intelligent argument to support their side other the absurd.

Live Free or Die
We have noise laws
The 150 foot rule
Enforceability

None of those address the issue of SPEED! That IS the issue. Get it? I am sure you do not.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

A person screaming across the lake at 70 +MPH is not necessary.

Other than oxygen, water and food, not much in life is.

[overlook]

jdeer

Slower is not always safer. There are minimum speed limits on land and in the air.
Hydralic steering made my boat safe to run at speeds in excess of 100mph safely.
Yes I am a thrill seeker, but only at my expense, not others.
Have you ever seen the adds for the arts? The same could be made for adrenalin. It is a realy good feeling having that stuff running through my veins.
I do kayak, sail and watch the sunset, but when the wind is blowing hard out in the broads, I feel safe at WOT. Much more safer than if I was in my canoe, kayak of sail.
There is a time and place for everyone, and don't forget we already have speed limits on NH lakes and waterways, unlike the poll that was asked if we should have speed limits.
All the deception that I have seen is coming from the HB162 supporters.
Back up your statements with factual and COMPLETE data.

[Bear Lover]

overlooker

How does this special steering help you see a swimmer in the water at speeds over 100 MPH?

It's nice that the adrenaline gives you a rush when you go fast. Is it like being on drugs? Either way your comment makes me feel less safe about being on the lake when you are! Does this drug help you see the swimmer we were talking about?

I do not understand your point of seed limits and NH lakes.

Read the Cost Guard data that shows speed to be the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents.

I have never seen a group that was more adept at putting their feet in their mouths than the opposition. Most of their arguments, when read by a impartial observer, support HB162.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

overlooker
Read the Cost Guard data that shows speed to be the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents.

That speed is based on "too fast for conditions". This could include slamming into a dock at 15 mph while approaching too fast! Also 10 mph in a dense fog or moonless night since the Coast Guard doesn't believe in posted "numbered" speed limit except some NWZ. See how you miss use data?
How does the Nike taste
Here's an example of a 6 mph Sat , Sun , Hol. NWZ as marked by the USCG. The greatest idea since sliced bread

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

No one is discriminating against anyone. Funny you should think so. I own 2 boats and both will travel faster than 45 MPH so I guess I am discriminating against myself? The simple common sense answer that slower is safer seems to fall on your sides deaf ears. Your replies I want to go faster because I want to is about all you say. I sure would love the extra time that a slower speed gives one to make a decision. A good boater keeps his head on a swivel but with excess speeds of some of the boats on the lake even that does not seem to be enough. Winnipesaukee has been hijacked by the minority who think it is their God given right to do whatever the want. . It was not that many years ago when a canoe was safe on this lake. The winds and weather are natural factors that affect all boaters. A person screaming across the lake at 70 +MPH is not necessary.

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Before you start name calling seems it is your side that seems a bit intolerant of the majorities opinion. I am still waiting for your side to make a intelligent argument to support their side other the absurd.

Live Free or Die
We have noise laws
The 150 foot rule
Enforceability

None of those address the issue of SPEED! That IS the issue. Get it? I am sure you do not.

Majority opinion? Obviously not according to the poll on this site, taken by people that use the lake not people in other parts of the state that do not even know what they are truly voting on...

There is quite indeed a discrimination against the GFBL's. Why does Winnfabs have to screen potential members??? Hmm, I do not think that OSO or NHRBA is.

And as far as "slower is safer" lets see the data on real accidents on this lake last season. How many accidents that occurred were based on people doing over 45mph? How many under 45mph? Hmm, once again I would have to bet the majority of accidents happened at under 45mph. Anyone care to contest that with real data??? Not unrelated CG data that claims speed to be #4 yet does not indicate what speed the accidents took place at, or for that matter data not even indicitive of Winni? If anyone can prove me wrong on this one with NH Marine Patrol data I will throw in my hat and vote for a speed limit. The challenge is on the table. Prove me wrong.

With no speed limit you are still more than welcome to travel under 45mph if you feel safer. Personally I feel confident enough in my boating skills that I can and do handle a boat traveling over 45mph well. I follow 150' rules, NWZ, and noise laws and do not endanger the lives of swimmers or other boaters.

And yes, I do get it. I get it that the laws that we have in effect are ineffective and that if they were enforced properly there would be no need for this entire discussion or this Bill. Oh, and you missed one. BWI. Isn't that what really started all this in the first place? Not the boat, not the speed.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Majority opinion? Obviously not according to the poll on this site, taken by people that use the lake not people in other parts of the state that do not even know what they are truly voting on...



Personally I feel confident enough in my boating skills that I can and do handle a boat traveling over 45mph well. I follow 150' rules, NWZ, and noise laws and do not endanger the lives of swimmers or other boaters.

First of all the poll on the forum means nothing in terms of any sort of real info. I think we all know that.

So lets see you feel perfectly confident traveling at 146.6 fps? You can close the 150 gap in the blink of an eye. In less than 10 seconds you have traveled .25 miles. You never look anywhere but straight ahead expect maybe when you are checking your speed, talking to the person behind you or whatever. You superhuman eye sight allows to see anything in the water. Hmmmm you are an amazing human.

I have in early spring hit a variety of junk in the lake. Traveling as slow as 30 MPH and looking for debris I can still come on it too fast to avoid. Not a doubt in my mind that at 3X plus that speed you can see a swimmer in the water. Get real. Oh and I know those boats that flipped where taking low speed turns oh but wait the must not have upgraded to your steering system.

You must be the reincarnation of Baja Boob the man who could handle it all.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Majority opinion? Obviously not according to the poll on this site, taken by people that use the lake not people in other parts of the state that do not even know what they are truly voting on...

You are wrong!

The majority vote on the poll is for speed limits.

Even though members of opposition brought in ringers from anther site AND voted more than once, the "No Limits" option is at 46%. Before the cheating started it was holding steady at 33%, the same as the state wide poll.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

First of all the poll on the forum means nothing in terms of any sort of real info. I think we all know that.

So lets see you feel perfectly confident traveling at 146.6 fps? You can close the 150 gap in the blink of an eye. In less than 10 seconds you have traveled .25 miles. You never look anywhere but straight ahead expect maybe when you are checking your speed, talking to the person behind you or whatever. You superhuman eye sight allows to see anything in the water. Hmmmm you are an amazing human.

I have in early spring hit a variety of junk in the lake. Traveling as slow as 30 MPH and looking for debris I can still come on it too fast to avoid. Not a doubt in my mind that at 3X plus that speed you can see a swimmer in the water. Get real. Oh and I know those boats that flipped where taking low speed turns oh but wait the must not have upgraded to your steering system.

You must be the reincarnation of Baja Boob the man who could handle it all.

What a load of crap. Have I ever stated that I travel the lake at 90mph (3x your 30mph debris run) nonetheless the 100mph in your fps calculation??? Maybe you have confused my post with Overlookers discussing steering systems and 100mph. Its not me, get it straight and direct it where it should go. My vision is just fine thanks, Zyoptix does wonders...We probably all have had some close call with debris but how many incidents on this lake has involved a swimmer being hit? Any data on that? And quite frankly if you feel that even at 45mph or 30mph you are not capable of handling your boat you should downsize. Try a canoe, I hear that the canoeing is wonderful here...Just keep an eye on the weather!

While we are at it I am still waiting for the accident data...Prove me wrong instead of taking pathetic, cheap shots...

I have 4 boats on the lake, 3 of which can do over 45mph but none of which will break 55mph. None of thru-hull exhaust and none of which are GFBL's. All are family boats, a sport cruiser, a fishing boat, a small bowrider and a pontoon. Does this fleet qualify me to be Baja Bob?

As far as the poll goes, maybe some light can be shed on the so-called fixing. Yep, some IDIOT claimed yo have tried to double vote yet someone else has posted that they tried to double vote using a few methods as a test and it did not work. Maybe Don should take out any votes for members that have joined since the poll was started and see how the data changes. This might clear the air on deceipt once and for all. And heck, if it is possible how many supporters actually did this as well and just simply were not stupid enough to post what they did?

[BroadHopper]

I have posted in another thread about the commercial fishermen in the coast, being effected by the 25 mph night rule. They are fuming. The proponents of HB162 did not want to touch this subject. Obviously they have not think about what effect at will happen outside of Winnipesaukee. The commercial fisherman endure enough rules and regulations. And the proponents are adding another one. I wish them a Happy New Year.

[Island Lover]

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

Case in point. It is quite possible that people on both sides have done it, not just attempts made in the opposing side to hijack the results.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

I guess those who voted twice are from Chicago, Illinois where the saying is "vote early and often"! I think that's how Mayor Daley won.

Hey lets have a Happy New Year!

[Mr. V]

At the risk of being accused of having some common sense, I will attempt to craft a workable compromise, as BOTH sides of the argument have some merit.

Do not impose a lake-wide speed limit; rather, designate an area or areas which allow unlimited speed, and limit it elsewhere.

For example: the broads, or any area which is at least a half mile from land / an island would permit unlimited speed.

Yeah, the distance thing is somewhat vague and amorphous, but by thunder, it could work!

Indeed, it DOES work for our freeways, where we allow and channel those vehicles wishing to travel at high speed.

While I thrill at the sight of a speed boat flying along (I used to own a Donzi), I recognize it not everybody's cuppa.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

overlooker

How does this special steering help you see a swimmer in the water at speeds over 100 MPH?

It's nice that the adrenaline gives you a rush when you go fast. Is it like being on drugs? Either way your comment makes me feel less safe about being on the lake when you are! Does this drug help you see the swimmer we were talking about?

I do not understand your point of seed limits and NH lakes.

Read the Cost Guard data that shows speed to be the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents.

I have never seen a group that was more adept at putting their feet in their mouths than the opposition. Most of their arguments, when read by a impartial observer, support HB162.

Just so you know, I would not be traveling at a high rate of speed where any person with any sense would be swimming. When I travel at a high rate I increase the distance of safe passage 4x. At 100 I can pick out a loon at over 1300 feet.

Docking too fast is a speed related accident.

There are speed limits on NH lakes and waterways, and because you don't understand that it is obvious that you are not an educated boater.

Before hydralic steering my boat would not be safe to operate over 65mph. Boats now are safer to operate than ever , due to new tech.

Where is my foot?
Is my spelling OK?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by overlook

Just so you know, I would not be traveling at a high rate of speed where any person with any sense would be swimming. When I travel at a high rate I increase the distance of safe passage 4x. At 100 I can pick out a loon at over 1300 feet.

Apart from all the sniping recently there's a couple of good points contained in the above. First is the argument that swimmers are endangered by speed in excess of 45 mph. Frankly 45 is waaay to fast if you're in the vicinity of swimmers. So the question then arises is how do you know if people are swimming in your vicinity. Overlook is correct in that there's some natural division between fast boats and swimmers that occurs when the operator is using good judgement. When he/she isn't using good judgement then I don't see HB-162 as really helping all that much. I've watched Capt B. motor past (maybe doing 30) the stern of a boat picking up a tuber. How to find a way to define and "punish" the bad operator is a better question than other's I've seen posed. Second I will again mention sightlines. When you have sufficient sightlines you can operate safely at "high" speeds. While slower buys you more time to perceive and react, once you have enough time it (more time to react) becomes a marginal issue. Littlefield had more than enough time to react and still didn't, for reasons we all can speculate on.

[ApS]

"If I had a canoe or kayak I'd sure as hell take it to another lake to enjoy it," said Crampton.

Let's see: We're free to trailer our boats to another lake, but a boat designed for "offshore" can't trailer it to the ocean?

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

What a load of crap. And quite frankly if you feel that even at 45mph or 30mph you are not capable of handling your boat you should downsize. Try a canoe, I hear that the canoeing is wonderful here...Just keep an eye on the weather!

While we are at it I am still waiting for the accident data...Prove me wrong instead of taking pathetic, cheap shots...


As far as the poll goes, maybe some light can be shed on the so-called fixing. Yep, some IDIOT claimed yo have tried to double vote yet someone else has posted that they tried to double vote using a few methods as a test and it did not work. Maybe Don should take out any votes for members that have joined since the poll was started and see how the data changes. This might clear the air on deceipt once and for all. And heck, if it is possible how many supporters actually did this as well and just simply were not stupid enough to post what they did?

So, Codeman tell me why is it that so many of the people opposed to the speed limit seem incapable of making a post without slinging the mud. I must admit I have slung a little mud too. But it does amaze me the way so many of the anti-speed limit folks get so rude so quickly. How does anyone get upset about the forum poll……………..it is not an accurate poll for either side.

If you your read over the myriad of posts the rudest ones seem to come from just one side. I think that is very telling of the personality that is fighting the speed limit.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Lets face it, this is a big lake and there is room for all but being that it is a big lake there are places that in my opinion kayaks or canoes should not go. Not due to boats or speed, simply weather/water conditions. We have all seen days when the broads are as rough or even rougher than the ocean. I personally saw numerous small skiffs, sunfish, kayakers and canoes that were far out in the lake on days where they should have stayed near shore. On two occasions we rescued people on flipped over sunfish and lasers on extremely rough, windy days near Diamond. They had no right being there...For their own safety that is. Sailboaters are not invincible!

What does weather conditions and the fact that some people take their non-power boats out in conditions that aren't safe have to do with the proposed speed limit bill? I own a sea kayak and boats traveling at excessive speeds have kept me off the lake way more than the winds/waves have.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

So, Codeman tell me why is it that so many of the people opposed to the speed limit seem incapable of making a post without slinging the mud. I must admit I have slung a little mud too. But it does amaze me the way so many of the anti-speed limit folks get so rude so quickly. How does anyone get upset about the forum poll……………..it is not an accurate poll for either side.

If you your read over the myriad of posts the rudest ones seem to come from just one side. I think that is very telling of the personality that is fighting the speed limit.

I think that you have slung plenty of mud...I think that all have. Shall we revert once again back to the post where you compared me to Baja Bob (or Boob as you typed) yet it wasn't even my post that should have actually torn apart? Other than recommending that you take up canoeing if you are not confident in your skills I did not see much slinging from my posts to you yet you had to make it personal. I have seen equally as much slinging from the proponents if not more than the opposition. This is a hot topic and its going to be a long winter...

Instead of tossing another mud pie why don't you dig up the data I requested to prove your points, prove me wrong. The interpretations of CG data were quite inconclusive since they did not detail further how speed related accidents took place. And the factual data on Winni? I would love to see it. Put up or shut up.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What does weather conditions and the fact that some people take their non-power boats out in conditions that aren't safe have to do with the proposed speed limit bill? I own a sea kayak and boats traveling at excessive speeds have kept me off the lake way more than the winds/waves have.

Absolutely nothing. Nor did my post state that there was a correlation. My post stated that the lake is big enough for all, I am sure that there is plenty of places to go where you probably would not be anywhere near speeding (or non-speeding for that matter) boats. Comments have been made about people feeling safe in kayaks or canoes, I was stating that there are other factors as well on a body of water as large as Winni that need to be taken into consideration besides power boats and traffic. Take a look at the photo galleries of some of the islanders like RG or IG, some of the excellent pictures taken will show what I was getting at.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Let's see: We're free to trailer our boats to another lake, but a boat designed for "offshore" can't trailer it to the ocean?

There are a lot of small lakes in the area that are very well suited for canoes and kayaks that larger boats are banned from or simple impractical on because of size. I'm I wrong?

[Island Lover]

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Absolutely nothing. Nor did my post state that there was a correlation. My post stated that the lake is big enough for all, I am sure that there is plenty of places to go where you probably would not be anywhere near speeding (or non-speeding for that matter) boats. Comments have been made about people feeling safe in kayaks or canoes, I was stating that there are other factors as well on a body of water as large as Winni that need to be taken into consideration besides power boats and traffic. Take a look at the photo galleries of some of the islanders like RG or IG, some of the excellent pictures taken will show what I was getting at.

I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine entirely. My point is that many people (like me) own sea kayaks, which are made for large bodies of water, so there are very few times that the weather (during the boating season) has prevented me from going out on any NH lake. My boat is made handle wind and large waves. Your solution is that I stay off the main lake, as only the power boaters belong out there. This is the sort of selfish attitude that seems to be the main argument of most people who are opposed to having a speed limit. I just don't get it.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What does weather conditions and the fact that some people take their non-power boats out in conditions that aren't safe have to do with the proposed speed limit bill? I own a sea kayak and boats traveling at excessive speeds have kept me off the lake way more than the winds/waves have.

Hi Evenstar,

I haven't seen a reply from you in a while, have you made that first trip to the lake yet?


ITD

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hi Evenstar,I haven't seen a reply from you in a while, have you made that first trip to the lake yet?

I stopped posted here when my posts stopped being allowed (due to my point of view, I'm guessing). FYI I paddled ~300 miles in my kayak in 2005, including what I did on Winni. I haven't spent much time on Winni, mostly because I don't feel like it's currently a safe lake to be on in a kayak on weekends. Even during weekdays, crossing any section of open water on Winni honestly doesn't feel safe to me, with the speeds that some power boats are traveling.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671
HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

I averaged out the speeds that have been voted on. The average was 54.2 MPH. Obviously there is no way to average in a "no limit" vote.

This supports the comments by supporters that they would have preferred a higher limit. Last summer a member of the RR&D committee was pushing for a 60/30 amendment. With some support by the opposition it would have happened.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

... I own a sea kayak and boats traveling at excessive speeds have kept me off the lake way more than the winds/waves have.

I'm shocked, if you really believe that statistically boats traveling over 45 mph pose a greater risk to a kayaker than wind/waves. Now granted, getting run over by a 100 mph Baja would be a horrible thing, but that risk is tiny compared to many others. You will be just as dead if you capsize in those whitecaps on the broards. No one will see you go in and no one will come to rescue you. Last summer, I saw an empty kayak floating free on the broads. It was a very windy day and no one was out. I looked through binoculars for a PFD but I couldn't see any. Finally, a friend went out and towed it in. I had a terrible feeling of dread until we found out it had just blown off a dock.

Winnipesaukee is a big lake with a lot of boats. There are many real dangers, wind, waves, boat wakes and collisions. There are plenty of good places and times on Winnipesaukee to kayak safely and there are plenty of places and times where it's not as safe. The speed limit will have absolutely no effect on those times and places.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

You are correct, it will not stop all speed problems as well as another problems that are more prevalent. I think that all we are asking for is the proponents to make their arguements fact based to prove the need instead of using individuals interpretations and arguing with comments like we "just don't get it".

My opinions on this have been steadfast since the start. I do not feel that a 25mph night limit is a bad idea and would vote for it. The daytime limit is unacceptable in my opinion. Concentrating more on education, training, noise control and enforcement of current laws will do much more than HB162 will/would ever accomplish, it would leave a resounding effect that would make all parties happy. I do still believe that there is some alterior motives/conspiracies emanating from the Bear Island area and feel that this really does tie back to Hartman/Littlefield. I also find it humorous that the Common Man sides for this yet if they had not served someone 6 merlots this all probably would never have happened. Sounds like CYA on their part to me. Pass the blame.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm shocked, if you really believe that statistically boats traveling over 45 mph pose a greater risk to a kayaker than wind/waves. Now granted, getting run over by a 100 mph Baja would be a horrible thing, but that risk is tiny compared to many others. You will be just as dead if you capsize in those whitecaps on the broards. No one will see you go in and no one will come to rescue you. Last summer, I saw an empty kayak floating free on the broads. It was a very windy day and no one was out. I looked through binoculars for a PFD but I couldn't see any. Finally, a friend went out and towed it in. I had a terrible feeling of dread until we found out it had just blown off a dock.

Winnipesaukee is a big lake with a lot of boats. There are many real dangers, wind, waves, boat wakes and collisions. There are plenty of good places and times on Winnipesaukee to kayak safely and there are plenty of places and times where it's not as safe. The speed limit will have absolutely no effect on those times and places.

I'm being totally honest here. Maybe you just don't understand what I'm talking about. A sea kayak is very different from a recreational kayak. They are ocean capable, which means they are designed for use in conditions which would not be safe for recreational kayaks. My kayak is 16 feet long, has sealed bulkheads, and has a sprayskirt to seal the cockpit (which also mean that it can be rolled back upright if capsized), it also has a rudder which aids in tracking when there are strong cross winds. Besides all that, I wear a pdf and a wet suit (and dry top, when the water is cold), carry a chart of the lake, and have a compass (which I do know how to use), plus I don't solo on the large lakes - so I'm not out there all alone. Plus I can do self rescues, as well as tandom rescues, and even carry a 50 foot tow/rescue line. Capsizing in rough weather is not much fun, but it isn't really life threatening to experienced kayakers with the proper equipment.

I've kayaked a great deal on Squam, even on busy weekends, and have never felt unsafe on that lake. I can't say that about Winni. And the waves and the wind were not why I felt unsafe on Winni.

[SIKSUKR]

I'm sorry but I can't resist.Shouldn't "Sea" kayaks only be on the sea?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I'm sorry but I can't resist.Shouldn't "Sea" kayaks only be on the sea?

I agree. Even more so that "offshore" boats. After all , 10' off of Weirs Beach is "off the shore" whereas "Sea" kayak states specifically "Sea"

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I wear a pdf

While we are poking a bit of fun I have to ask what good Adobe Acrobat software does in a kayak...

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Capsizing in rough weather is not much fun, but it isn't really life threatening to experienced kayakers with the proper equipment.

I've kayaked a great deal on Squam, even on busy weekends, and have never felt unsafe on that lake. I can't say that about Winni. And the waves and the wind were not why I felt unsafe on Winni.

Sounds like you are prepared, a lot of people are not. Kayaking is so affordable, and easy to learn, that a lot of people get in over there heads.

Are you sure that it's not the sheer number of boats on Winnipesaukee that causes your unsafe feeling, as opposed to the extremely few boats exceeding 45 mph. I spent every summer weekend for the last four years in a condo overlooking the Broads. I'd be surprised if one boat in a hundred was going over 45 mph.

[Island Lover]

Is this really the answer you guys want to give?

When you have been proved wrong why not just say so. Making a half joke about sea kayaks belonging in the ocean is childish.

I looked for definitions of offshore, I found

"In internationally navigable waters" USCG

"Out of sight of land" Marine Manufacturers Association

"At a distance from shore" Websters

Where did you get the definition "10' off of Weirs Beach"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Is this really the answer you guys want to give?

When you have been proved wrong why not just say so. Making a half joke about sea kayaks belonging in the ocean is childish.

I looked for definitions of offshore, I found

"In internationally navigable waters" USCG

"Out of sight of land" Marine Manufacturers Association

"At a distance from shore" Websters

Where did you get the definition "10' off of Weirs Beach"?

I apologize . I guess when you read enough misguided reasoning , it begins to rub off .

[jrc]

These were just harmless jokes. But the point is valid. Nicknames, model names or descriptive names are just that and are seldom absolute. So a sea kayak is fine on a lake or river. A sailboat can use a motor once in a while, a Baja Islander doesn't have to dock at islands, you don't have to dance in the sun if you buy a Sundancer. And you don't have to be out of site of land to drive an offshore boat.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

These were just harmless jokes. But the point is valid. Nicknames, model names or descriptive names are just that and are seldom absolute. So a sea kayak is fine on a lake or river. A sailboat can use a motor once in a while, a Baja Islander doesn't have to dock at islands, you don't have to dance in the sun if you buy a Sundancer. And you don't have to be out of site of land to drive an offshore boat.

BUT kayaks can go places other boats can't. Such as small creeks , streams , shallow rivers and ponds. Doesn't seem fair , does it

[fatlazyless]

ok...so that newspaper quote from the supporter of not passing HB162 went something like 'If I had a canoe or kayak, I would want to get the hell off Winnipesaukee and go find some smaller lake.'

The no-wake zone created maybe two years ago in Meredith bay starting at Church Point has made that area popular for a Meredith youth league, like maybe 12 year-olds, in their small Pram sailboats. Meredith has a middle school age, 12-14 or so, girl's rowing team that is out on Meredith Bay in their 8 seat, four seat, two seat and one seat rowing skulls. The team travels around to places like the Cornell Gorges River, the Head of the Charles event, and has a histoy of coming in first place in their short history.

If making the no-wake zone worked so well in Meredith Bay, just think what a 45 day-25 night speed limit could do for the entire lake. Going 45mph is hardly a slow speed for the great majority of boats on the lake. Going 45mph is, in fact a very fast speed and fast enough to go waterskiing barefoot. It would make the lake a whole lot nicer for a whole lot of lake users, and is going to happen soon so everyone might as well get used to it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It would make the lake a whole lot nicer for a whole lot of lake users, and is going to happen soon so everyone might as well get used to it.

From what I've read in HB162 , the proposed effective date was 2007 . If it passes , 2006 could turn into a "free for all" for that one last blast around the lake

[foster]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Is this really the answer you guys want to give?

When you have been proved wrong why not just say so. Making a half joke about sea kayaks belonging in the ocean is childish.

I looked for definitions of offshore, I found

"In internationally navigable waters" USCG

"Out of sight of land" Marine Manufacturers Association

"At a distance from shore" Websters

Where did you get the definition "10' off of Weirs Beach"?

Ohhh get over it , it was just A Joke.....

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

From what I've read in HB162 , the proposed effective date was 2007 . If it passes , 2006 could turn into a "free for all" for that one last blast around the lake

This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...There is quite indeed a discrimination against the GFBL's..."

This is partly true.

I just found a class of GFBLs against whom the new RSA would discriminate: It's the ones whose speedometers start at 50-MPH (and not zero).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

It's on the home PC so when I get back tomorrow AM I'll dig it up. Basically I asked if the BARD (database) was accessible to the general public or if the general public could pose questions/queries to the database to get correlations not available in the yearly report. For example what is the cross correlation of boat collisions and speed of boats (where speed was input). Looking at the USCG forms there aren't that many fields so it just might be possible that the whole enchilada could be downloadable in a MS Access readable form. I'm not betting the farm on it though ....