Transportation votes to scuttle HB 162

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So did the Senate Transporation and Interstate Cooperation Committee take a vote to either recommend or not recommend this bill?

If so anyone know if they voted yea or nay?

By a vote of 4 to 1 the Transportation Committee voted to scuttle HB 162. The story with vote tally appears in today's Manchester Union Leader:

Committee puts brakes on HB 162

The full vote should come up on the Senate floor within the next few weeks.

Skip

[fatlazyless]

Too bad about that and better luck next time. Now, if someone could come up with a way that enforcing a speed limit would put more money into the Republican senators' campaign funds than what they get from the GF-BL interests, it would pass in a Concord NH minute!

Senator Bob LeTourneau (R-Derry), the chairman of the Transportation Committee that has been looking at HB-162 dismissed the 45-25 speed limits bill. He said that HB 162 was too broad and that the NH Marine Patrol would not be able to enforce it. That using radar across the waters was not accurate and open to error. The problem is not with speeding on a crowded lake but with not keeping a distance of at least 150'. He said that the supporters of HB 162 were not able to satisfactorily make a case for being in fear of the 32'-8000lb-1150hp boats travelling at 60-70mph and that the existing 150' safe passage law addressed the fear issue. Sounds like he gets his arguing points straight from Woodsy.

Senator LeTourneau recently was the sponsor of a bill that was approved which requires that the phrase "Live Free or Die" to be part of all highway welcome signs right underneath "Welcome to New Hampshire' and to replace the "You're Gonna Love it Here' slogan.

He's a long time motorcycle rider and proponent for the motorcycle helmet optional and automobile seatbelt optional laws.

If HB 162 passed the Senate then it is highly likely that Gov Lynch would sign it, in my opinion. The House knew that it would have to get through the Senate and the Senate knows that their decision really counts here.

As long as the Senate has 16 Republicans and 8 Democrats, a boat speed limit law will never get passed. Republican Senators Joe Kenney and Carl Johnson, neither one a member of the Transportation Commttee, and whose districts include Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Moultonboro, Centre Harbor & Meredith are in favor of HB 162. Senator Robert Boyce whose district includes Winnipesaukee waterfront towns of Alton, Gilford and Laconia is against HB 162. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham), a member of the Transportation Committee, was a no-show at the large State House hearing two weeks ago and again at the Transportation Committee vote so she too must be against HB 162, possibly in responce to her commercial fishing constituents.

.....just wait till next year. We'll be back, but it will take a huge sea change in the Senate for an HB 162 speed limit law to get approved so it just ain't gonna happen for years & years, if ever, in my opinion. But, between Bush's unpopularity, Lynch's popularity and some recent Democratic state victories for local Democrats, who knows? Maybe the tide will turn and the NH Republicans will get defeated, big time.

Also, in my humble opinion, with that opinion from Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish), a Harvard educated attorney, the whole speed limit 45-25 - pass HB-162 effort now looks pretty hopeless. So, it's time to go find some other windmill to tilt at.

Anyone know where I can pick up a 27' twin-hull SKATER with an old pair of carbureted, growling, two-stroke 200hp Mercs with a blown powerhead or something, on the cheap?

Spring is just around the corner here, so I'll be wanting to get out in my new Skater and go buzz some attentive fisherman who's out there a-slow trollin' for a lake trout!

IF THERE'S NO SOLUTION, IT'S BETTER TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM...............................YOOO!

Do I sound angry to you? So, have a great winter and ice-out will be here soon so be carefull out on the Big Lake and watch out for the 75mph GoFast- BeLouds, especially if you're in a kayak.

[Dave R]

Nice to see common sense prevail.

[Lakegeezer]

Its not over yet - but it looks like the senate committee understands that this proposal was not the answer. It is too bad that the speed limit fans over hyped the wrong problem and didn't address the true issue of overcrowding and lack of education. With all the publicity of the issue, those who do not know the truth about the lake now believe it is a place to be fearful of. It is, of course, not! The marinas took the wrong side on the issue - and instead, should have downplayed the problem of speed, yet encourage more boater education. I hope some good comes from the heated discussion that has gone on for over a year. Boaters must behave better. They should honor the 150 foot rule. If boaters are going extra fast, they should maintain even more distance than required. We should all be mindful that some boaters (and probably a greater percentage of passengers) have unfounded fears. A little respect to the fearful would be a nice gesture. The right to safely go fast may be preserved for now, but the right to be an @$$ remains against the law. Now - let the two sides come together and work on ways to reduce fear without infringing on the right to the persuit of happiness - which for some, is speed.

[ITD]

Common sense prevails. The damage has been done however. Lake Winnipesaukee's image has been tarnished. It has been portrayed as an unfriendly place where large boats zoom around at 150 mph and women and children are frightened to set foot in the water. It's a shame because it is not true.

I also think the people out there with the illegally loud boats and illegal exhaust switches contributed greatly to this issue especially upsetting some of the island folks. You know who you are and you need to smarten up. Hopefully MP will be able to do more about that problem.

Finally Senators on the committee, thank you, for using common sense and wading through the hype around this matter to make a rational, correct decision. Let's hope that the rest of the senate follows your example.

[Woodsy]

Lets not count our chickens before they hatch! Its not over yet...

It seems as if the the Transportation Comittee agrees with us, but I am sure there will be some serious debate on the floor when it comes time for a final vote on this bill. We need still need to stay on top of things and write & call our senators! To be truthful I was/am expecting a "Reasonable & Prudent" amendment to replace 45/25...

Woodsy

[SIKSUKR]

Here's WMUR's article. **** http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/7875891/detail.html

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....just wait till next year. We'll be back!

The ducks are forming their own coalition and this is their leader's comment about HB162.

[JK47]

Great news! While I'm ardently against the speed limit, I am in favor of a measure to control the excessively loud boats. If you can afford to drop $ 3/4 million on a boat with super-fast engines, you should invest some money in sound dampening material.

My $.02...

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Now - let the two sides come together and work on ways to reduce fear without infringing on the right to the persuit of happiness - which for some, is speed.

Ah, if only it were that easy......

[jrc]

I agree with JK47. So if this debate has directly or indirectly promoted an enforcable noise law, IMHO it was worth it.

I hope I'm not counting my chickens before they're hatched.

[John A. Birdsall]

I think a speed limit and noise limit at night time is very much warranted. 25 knots after dark is plenty fast enough. But I think that the biggest thing is that the 150' law must be adhered to. If we do not have enough MP's on the big lake, then lets increase the registration fees by a couple bucks, and have all types of boats on the lake pay a minimal fee of $2.00 for registration and somehow have that earmarked for MP fees.

Noise from big motored boats is excessive and should be quited down when the lights of the boats come on, and at the same time by limiting speed at night people can hear the nice sounds of all boats on the lake within ear shot.

Common sense is a big cause of fear, or should I have said lack of common sense, and I am not referring to the party that is in fear, but the party that causes it. So my fellow boaters, lets use some common sense, obey the laws that are in place, and treat others as you would like to be treated.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

I think a speed limit and noise limit at night time is very much warranted. 25 knots after dark is plenty fast enough. But I think that the biggest thing is that the 150' law must be adhered to. If we do not have enough MP's on the big lake, then lets increase the registration fees by a couple bucks, and have all types of boats on the lake pay a minimal fee of $2.00 for registration and somehow have that earmarked for MP fees.

Noise from big motored boats is excessive and should be quited down when the lights of the boats come on, and at the same time by limiting speed at night people can hear the nice sounds of all boats on the lake within ear shot.

Common sense is a big cause of fear, or should I have said lack of common sense, and I am not referring to the party that is in fear, but the party that causes it. So my fellow boaters, lets use some common sense, obey the laws that are in place, and treat others as you would like to be treated.

Well put John!

[Skip]

The first reading to the full Senate of HB 162 will occur next Thursday, 3/16/2006 sometime after 10:00 am.

This is where to go to listen to live streaming audio of the Senate that day if you so desire:

NH State Senate Live audio stream

Transportation Committee Chair Senator Robert Letourneau will be giving the report on that day.

Skip

[fatlazyless]

From today's March 10, Laconia Daily Sun, it is the lead story at the top of the front page. Written by Michael Kitch

CONCORD - The Senate Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee yesterday torpedoed the bill to impose speed limits on New Hampshire lakes - House Bill 162 - by a margin of 4 to 1.
All four Republicans on the committee - Robert LeTourneau (Derry), who chairs the panel, Charles Morse (Salem), Robert Flanders (Antrim), and Andre Martel (Manchester) - voted against the bill, leaving Senator Peter Burling (D-Cornish) the lone dissenter. Senator Iris Estabrook (D-Durham) was not present.
The committee met at short notice following a long session of the Senate. Burling said that after Morse offered the motion to kill the bill, Flanders suggested the committee consider an amendment that would delete the specific speed limits of 45 mph, in daytime and 25 mph at night while retaining the requirementthat boats operate at a "reasonable and prudent" speed suited to the prevailing conditions at all times. This approach was favored by the minority of the House Resources, Recreation and Developement Committee and rejected by the House itself.
"There was no interest on either side of the issue for that approach in the Senate," Burling said. Burling said that after floating several suggestions for amendments in an effort to forge a majority, he became convinced that opponents of the bill were not open to compromise. "They were just interested in killing it," he said.
Burling counted no more than eight or nine votes for the bill in the 24-member Senate, four or five votes shy of a majority. He named six of the eight Democrats and two or three Republicans, including Carl Johnson of Meredith and Joe Kenney of Union, whose districts are filled with lakes, in support of the bill.
Despite the unfavorable committee recommendation, HB 162 will still be voted on by the entire Senate.


March 10, 2006, The Laconia Daily Sun, by Michael Kitch


Thankyou Laconia Daily Sun for this informative article. fll

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Burling counted no more than eight or nine votes for the bill in the 24-member Senate, four or five votes shy of a majority. He named six of the eight Democrats and two or three Republicans, including Carl Johnson of Meredith and Joe Kenney of Union, whose districts are filled with lakes, in support of the bill.

Wow! This is a democratic conspiricy? Looks like I'll have to start voting republican again

[JDeere]

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by JDeere

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

Actually, I think it's more a case of the clear, sensible minds prevailing versus the "fear mongers'" campaign to scare everyone into voting for this useless bill. In any case, I think the publicity put forth from both sides of the issue just might have an underlying benefit of making people more aware of what they are doing on the lake. Who knows?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by JDeere

The politicians once again forgot who they serve. Surely not the first time this has happened. The voters will remember those who opposed this common sense rule and the voters will elect new senators who remember that the majority wanted the speed limit and it is the majority who decides elections.

Secondly, the old cliché that Rome was not built in day holds true for HB-162. The proponents will be back. More organized, and hopefully better funded and will get the bill re-introduced. A speed limit will come. If not this year than in the years following.

You have the role of Senators confused with the role of Representatives. Senators are not supposed to vote based on popular opinion. They are supposed to vote with their wisdom to, for instance, prevent popular but dumb ideas from becoming law. Representatives did exactly what they were supposed to do by voting with the wishes of thier most "vocal" constituents.

[lakelovers]

I'm amazed that NH is the only state where "silent choice" option, where one can quiet there boat, is illegal. Most of the loud boats on the lake have exhaust noise levels which are legal. If they were legally able to have the ability to switch the exhaust out through the lower unit, then the lake would be MUCH quieter at night.

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by lakelovers

I'm amazed that NH is the only state where "silent choice" option, where one can quiet there boat, is illegal. Most of the loud boats on the lake have exhaust noise levels which are legal. If they were legally able to have the ability to switch the exhaust out through the lower unit, then the lake would be MUCH quieter at night.

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

Sorry, I don't agree, the boats that I have heard with these switches go from reasonably quiet to straight pipes, very loud. There is no good reason for this other than excessive noise. Boats should be quiet. As I said before, I think most of the speed limit squawking comes because people are upset about loud boats. If the mentioned boats can be much quieter at night, they should be just as quiet during the day also.

[lakelovers]

I respect your opinion, but to say all boats must be quiet is very subjective. What is the definition of quiet? What is the definition of quiet? I have friends on the marine patrol and many of the boats that someone like you would consider aggregiously loud are in fact legal. My friends boat has pipes out the back and his boat is considered legal. I have another friend who has "silent choice" and has had it for 5 years and has never been stopped and his neighbors love him for using it at night.

This question is so subjective, that I would argue that you will never see an enforceable noise law on the lake. So, why make a courtesy switch illegal. It doesn't make any sense.

Just my 2 cents.

Live Free or Die!!!

[ITD]

I suppose if the switch were used to switch between the legal sound limit and something quieter it would probably be ok. The law defines what is too loud and is being worked on to make testing easier. Unfortunately most of the boats I've heard with this feature would fail the sound test. What people forget or don't care about with these loud boats is that even the most remote portion of the lake is only a couple miles from shore, so these loud boats disturb hundreds of people when they are out on the broads. I think the law is a good law and the noise laws should be adjusted and improved to allow easier enforcement to quiet the illegal boats down. I'll say it one more time, if the loud fast boats were quiet also, most people would not even notice them and we wouldn't have this speed limit fiasco going on.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by lakelovers

I would estimate that less than 5% of boats with these switches, have illegal exhaust systems.

I live on an island and wish my neighbors had these switches in their boat, especially when they come home late at night!

Allow boats to show courtesy and legalize exhaust switching technology!!

Agree lakelovers! Innovation and legalization of quieting devices should be encouraged. You can also encourage the fast and loud boats to speed as fast as they want - "so fast that they are quickly come and gone". Of course, there is a link between increased boat speed and increased volume. Engine volume and sound duration is the trade-off. Louder for less time or softer for longer? For example, slow can be a problem too. Have you ever waited for it to become quiet and still again while a 1.5 HP putt putt drones along?

One of the arguments against a speed limit is that the threat of points on the license will encourage the loud boats to go slower - yet they would be almost as loud.

[sum-r breeze]

Finally, resonable minds prevail. That's the reason poeple still want to come to the Lake! I think the more times this comes up for discussion, the more opposition it will face.

The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

Finally, resonable minds prevail. That's the reason poeple still want to come to the Lake! I think the more times this comes up for discussion, the more opposition it will face.

The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back!

This has nothing to do with reasonable minds. It's politics, and senators who have a narrow view of boating.

What is reasonable about having no speed limit on a busy lake?

Why don't we just do away with highway speed limits as well? After all, auto accidents are not caused by excessive speed, but by inattentive, careless, or drunken drivers.

Powerboaters might still want to come to Winni, but the paddlers are leaving.

Personally, I feel like my freedom to use NH lakes is being tread on.

[SAMIAM]

I wish all you speed limit advocates could be with me here in Ft Myers.The Intercoastal Waterway (ICU) on the Caloosahatchee River is a direct line from the Atlantic in Palm Beach to Ft Myers on the gulf coast.The speed limit is 25 mph and the only danger is from the 40' to 100' boats that throw up an enormous wake at that speed.Two of them,meeting in a narrow channel will bring up a 4 to 6 foot chop that will swamp a smaller boat that doesn't have sense to get out of the way....kind of like the channel in back of Bear Island.
The go fast boats leave a two foot wake....and even less when they reach the Gulf of Mexico and get up to the horrifing speeds that you folks are talking about.
My 26' Hurricane deck boat will do a frightening 38mph at wide open throttle.....just so you know.

[JDeere]

wish all you speed limit advocates could be with me here in Ft Myers.The Intercoastal Waterway (ICU) on the Caloosahatchee River is a direct line from the Atlantic in Palm Beach to Ft Myers on the gulf coast.The speed limit is 25 mph and the only danger is from the 40' to 100' boats that throw up an enormous wake at that speed.Two of them,meeting in a narrow channel will bring up a 4 to 6 foot chop that will swamp a smaller boat that doesn't have sense to get out of the way....

Gee what a well thought out post. Your are right I think that there is no usage speed in narrow channel and those stupid smaller boats are most assuredly at fault fro not getting out the way. No way are the larger crafts responsible for their wakes and damage that they create. Hopefully NH will wake up and abolish no wake areas especially in the Weirs channel. We would not want any large wakes capsizing any idiot who does not have the common sense and decency to get out of the way.

[fatlazyless]

I think a lot of people vote their wallets and if they have spent a large sum on a speed boat, they will try to make a good argument for having no speed limit. Samian has mentioned that while there's nothing wrong with water and granola, that kayakers do not fill seats at restaurant tables, as the big boats do. Everyone probably votes their wallets, always have & always will, not a surprise.

If herds of hungry kayakers were in the habit of paddling over to area restaurants and lining up for the yankee pot roast, the chicken parmargiana al fredo with linquini in a white wine sauce, or the sweet & sour chicken with pork fried rice & an eggroll, then Samian would be making an argument for a speed limit to protect the beloved kayakers.

[hoytglp]

If the 150' rule would be enforced things would change a great deal on the lake, there would be areas that would be no wake zones without even putting up markers. No VOTE would be needed.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Gee what a well thought out post. Your are right I think that there is no usage speed in narrow channel and those stupid smaller boats are most assuredly at fault fro not getting out the way. No way are the larger crafts responsible for their wakes and damage that they create. Hopefully NH will wake up and abolish no wake areas especially in the Weirs channel. We would not want any large wakes capsizing any idiot who does not have the common sense and decency to get out of the way.

I think you misread the post. His point is that the wake endangering small boats is created by large cabin cruisers traveling in the ~25 mph range. He went on to say that the go-fast boats create a much smaller wake. And yes, it is a good point which has been brought up in the debate before.

How often do you see huge wakes given off by a Formula traveling in the 45-50+ mph range? Never. On the other hand, how often do you see huge wakes on the lake that are produced from a cabin cruiser traveling in the 15-30 mph range? Quite often.

[SAMIAM]

Thanks for sticking up for me JK....that was my point exactly.
I think the speed limit backers are getting angry and unsettled because they see things are not going their way.
No need to be touchy...Geez

[ITD]

You know after reading the article FLL posted the speed limit is very much up in the air. I got a kick out of the seacoast Senators who are more than willing to impose a limit on Lake Winnipesaukee as long as they don't get one on the inland flats. They know there is no problem, but I'm sure they've been badgered, cajoled and threatened by the likes of Island Lover and Fat Jack. The hype and inaccurate reports about how dangerous Winni. is supposed to be have had an effect. If the Senators who are teetering on this issue would just take a look at the actual statistics on Winni. and NH, they would see that there is no problem with speed and the small number of accidents that have happened were due to other circumstances. The one fatal incident that keeps being brought up wasn't even close to being a speed related accident, a speed limit just would not have helped that poor person.


The senate committee did the right thing voting against this speed limit, hopefully the senate will follow their example.

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This has nothing to do with reasonable minds. It's politics, and senators who have a narrow view of boating.

What is reasonable about having no speed limit on a busy lake?

Why don't we just do away with highway speed limits as well? After all, auto accidents are not caused by excessive speed, but by inattentive, careless, or drunken drivers.

Powerboaters might still want to come to Winni, but the paddlers are leaving.

Personally, I feel like my freedom to use NH lakes is being tread on.

Evenstar... I think it is you that has the narrow view of boating. No one is hampering your paddling in any way, shape, or form. Do you think you could paddle across the Broads WITH the 45mph speed limit and do it safely? I think not. Paddle where it is safe. Don't paddle where you'll get killed. Just plain old common sense. Now... Highway speed limits....Have you ever seen those signs that read "No Bicycles, Horses,or Pedestrians" as you travel down an on ramp getting on the highway? Why do you think they limit the type of conveyance of travel on certain roads? I'll give you a hint....They can't safely keep up with the speed of the rest of the traffic. Do you see where I'm going with this? Reasonable,Safe,Prudent,all watch words. Just remember
Stupid Kills almost every time.


The Breeze
Wave "your paddle" 'cause I'll be waving back

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Powerboaters might still want to come to Winni, but the paddlers are leaving.

I'd like that in writing, please.

Seriously, though, there are plenty of areas at the Lake for an enjoyable paddle or two - even for two. Have you ever paddled with the loons in the general area of Green's Basin? There's some wetlands, marsh, in that area, also, that will provide for paddling time without powerboats, unless they are paddling too.

Less negative energy and more positive energy, please.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

Evenstar... I think it is you that has the narrow view of boating. No one is hampering your paddling in any way, shape, or form. Do you think you could paddle across the Broads WITH the 45mph speed limit and do it safely? I think not. Paddle where it is safe. Don't paddle where you'll get killed. Just plain old common sense. Now... Highway speed limits....Have you ever seen those signs that read "No Bicycles, Horses,or Pedestrians" as you travel down an on ramp getting on the highway? Why do you think they limit the type of conveyance of travel on certain roads? I'll give you a hint....They can't safely keep up with the speed of the rest of the traffic. Do you see where I'm going with this? Reasonable,Safe,Prudent,all watch words. Just remember
Stupid Kills almost every time.

Yes, I could safely cross the Broads if there was a 45 mph. Why couldn’t I?

My view is not narrow, because mine allows for all boaters to share our lakes. All I’m asking for is for the faster boaters to slow down a bit to a speed that is safe for the rest of us.

I get exactly where you’re going. But a lake is for recreation – it’s not a high speed transportation system. And it’s not a race course. And personally, I think there’s something very wrong when a recreation activity favors mechanical engines over human power.

Why do you feel that it’s stupid to use a boat that is specifically designed for large bodies of water, on a large lake?

[Airwaves]

Sum-r-breeze wrote in a headline:
That's Feedom 1 Liberals 0

Just to set the record straight. I consider myself a liberal with moderate leanings, yet I oppose the speed limit.

This has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism it has to do with the desired effect.

After reading posts from both sides and looking at statistics I determined, IMHO that the problems were not with speed but with lack of enforcement of the rules already on the books, in particular the 150' and No Wake rules.

Yes, even liberals are opposed to creating a law just for the sake of creating a law!

Now how about looking at a bill to increase funding to Marine Patrol for more training and personnel?

I understand the problem, no state is going to put a lot of money into the training of part time personnel, so how about this. Turn control of MP over to the State Police.

Same training that SP Troopers receive with the additional training required to enforce marine laws. Then when the boating season is over the bulk of the MP force's duties change and they become traditional troopers until the next boating season.

At least that way a smooth talker might be able to make an argument for a real investment in what otherwise is a police force that is active for only a few months a year.

[JDeere]

After reading posts from both sides and looking at statistics I determined, IMHO that the problems were not with speed but with lack of enforcement of the rules already on the books, in particular the 150' and No Wake rules.

Tell me something, you folks who keep arguing that we need to enforce the 150 rule how do you do that? Judging 150 feet on land is pretty arbitrary unless you are a surveyor but on water? You argue that the speed limit is impossible to enforce and then you argue to keep the currently unenforceable rule. Or you argue that if the big boats have to slow down they are going to swamp you with their wake. The next argument from those who are opposed to the speed limit that makes sense will be the first one. Speed limits are coming if not in 2007 then in 2008. Too many people support the speed limit for it to ultimately fail. Looks like the special interest folks may have won this year but the fat lady has not yet sung has she?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Tell me something, you folks who keep arguing that we need to enforce the 150 rule how do you do that? Judging 150 feet on land is pretty arbitrary unless you are a surveyor but on water? You argue that the speed limit is impossible to enforce and then you argue to keep the currently unenforceable rule. Or you argue that if the big boats have to slow down they are going to swamp you with their wake. The next argument from those who are opposed to the speed limit that makes sense will be the first one. Speed limits are coming if not in 2007 then in 2008. Too many people support the speed limit for it to ultimately fail. Looks like the special interest folks may have won this year but the fat lady has not yet sung has she?

Ah,

So let's add another unenforceable rule and that will make things better. How about focussing on the issues brought up throughout this discussion and finding a way to solve them through thoughtful study. Some of those issues: congestion, rude behavior, excessive noise, camp directors concerned about safety and a few paddlers who want to paddle anywhere unimpeded. I know I missed a few there but that is pretty much the gist of what has been argued. Now tell me how a speed limit will solve any of these problems? It won't. It will be just one more useless law. But some things can be done, judicious use of NWZ for camp directors concerns for instance. Equipment and easier to enforce noise laws for MP ( this seems to be underway already). How do you solve congestion? That's a tough one, limit access? Or is congestion really a problem? I don't think so except for a few select days.

Anyway, is this really about safety and speed? Sometimes I wonder.....

Originally Posted by JDeere

......Although I do dislike the GFBL crowd ......

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...9278#post19278

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yes, I could safely cross the Broads if there was a 45 mph. Why couldn’t I?

Your safety doesn't increase or decrease with HB-162, because the problem isn't speed, but congestion. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't paddled the Broads. The fact remains that NOBODY on Lake Winnipesaukee or elsewhere in NH has been run over by a boat that was exceeding the 45MPH daylight limit proposed by HB-162... NOBODY!

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My view is not narrow, because mine allows for all boaters to share our lakes. All I’m asking for is for the faster boaters to slow down a bit to a speed that is safe for the rest of us.

Actually you have a very narrow view. You have very little experience paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee, but somehow you seem to know whats best for everyone? Perhaps you know what you want and what is best for you? If Lake Winnipesaukee were as dangerous as you & some of the other WinnFabs claim, we would have some sort of statistics to back it up. We would have boat collisions at speeds greater than proposed, we would have injuries and deaths caused by these collisions. In fact the national average is 5.3 deaths per 100,000 boats registered. But guess what... we don't have any of that! If one were to believe what some have said (on both sides) that hi-performance boaters only make up 5% of the boats on Lake Winnipesaukee, shouldn't it be the other 95% of everyday boaters you should be concerned with?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I get exactly where you’re going. But a lake is for recreation – it’s not a high speed transportation system. And it’s not a race course. And personally, I think there’s something very wrong when a recreation activity favors mechanical engines over human power.

Why do you feel that it’s stupid to use a boat that is specifically designed for large bodies of water, on a large lake?

Just because you think there is something wrong when a recreational activity favors mechanical engines over human power, doesn't mean everybody else does. With that one blanket statement one could infer that you would be happier with a Lake Winnipesaukee with no power boats on it all.

Last I checked, Lake Winnipesaukee was a large body of water.

There is plenty of room for everyone to enjoy Lake Winnipesaukee however they choose. Perhaps if you had more experience paddling the lake you would understand this better. I suggest you come see for yourself this summer, you will see how safe the lake really is...

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The fact remains that NOBODY on Lake Winnipesaukee or elsewhere in NH has been run over by a boat that was exceeding the 45MPH daylight limit proposed by HB-162... NOBODY!

Woodsy

Nice dance you did there with that one.

What about the nighttime proposed 25 mph limit. Can you make the same claim?

And your claim is incorrect anyway, there have been several fatal accidents at medium and high speeds. Just because the MP doesn't write down a speed on the report doesn't mean it aint so.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

There was no dance! I base my decisions on facts and statistics, not emotion. I cannot make that claim for nighttime. There has been 1 nighttime fatality in 3 years! You of course know that! They estimated Danny was traveling 28MPH a whopping 3 MPH or 4.4 FPS above the proposed limit! But you have yet to convince me that the extra 4.4 FPS would have made a difference that night. That extra 3 MPH was not enough to raise the ire of the MP for a speeding ticket. Perhaps if Danny was paying attention, everything would have been different, and Mr. Hartman would be here today! Operator Inattention and alcohol were the primary causes for that collision. It had nothing to do with speed.

I really just don't think you can legislate common sense or courtesy. Every attempt to do so thus far in the history of humanity has failed.

Woodsy

[JDeere]

Yes, I do dislike the folks who think it is their God given right to go as fast and be as loud as the want to without regard for other folks.

It will be just one more useless law.

Seems your side is always arguing that all we need is the enforcement of the 150 rule. Glad to see you agree that the 150 rule is not doing the job and can never do the job. The people who want to go faster than 45 MPH are the minority. Why does your side argue that someone who wants to paddle across the broads is a nut? If the boat is capable of handling the waters then that person should be safe! Hard to be safe though when you have people going so fast that they cannot respond in time. So, sure I will stand with my comment of not liking the GFBL crowd.

The GFBL will ultimately lose. Who would have thought that 20 or 30 years ago you would have to go outside to smoke? Ultimately those that impose their dangerous behavior on the majority will lose out. It just takes time to get politicians to change the laws to respond to the times.

I do agree that the lake is too congested and something should be addressed but the first place to start is slow the boats down!

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Yes, I do dislike the folks who think it is their God given right to go as fast and be as loud as the want to without regard for other folks.


Seems your side is always arguing that all we need is the enforcement of the 150 rule. Glad to see you agree that the 150 rule is not doing the job and can never do the job. The people who want to go faster than 45 MPH are the minority. Why does your side argue that someone who wants to paddle across the broads is a nut? If the boat is capable of handling the waters then that person should be safe! Hard to be safe though when you have people going so fast that they cannot respond in time. So, sure I will stand with my comment of not liking the GFBL crowd.

The GFBL will ultimately lose. Who would have thought that 20 or 30 years ago you would have to go outside to smoke? Ultimately those that impose their dangerous behavior on the majority will lose out. It just takes time to get politicians to change the laws to respond to the times.

I do agree that the lake is too congested and something should be addressed but the first place to start is slow the boats down!

Your analogy that more laws and regulations will result in a better society is frightening.
Its people like you who believe big brother should intervene in every aspect of our lives that realy scare me.
You are right about fast boats being the minority ! And thats why it isnt realy a problem , the numbers of boats going fast on the lake are few !
However enough people have spoken against HB162 (speedboaters or not) because they see it as just another chance for big brother to limit there freedoms and an overreaction to a systemic problem, overcrowding.
And then you have your #1 proponent, owner of a boat yard with 300+ wet slips and many more in the racks.. Talk about hypocrisy !

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Your safety doesn't increase or decrease with HB-162, because the problem isn't speed, but congestion. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't paddled the Broads. The fact remains that NOBODY on Lake Winnipesaukee or elsewhere in NH has been run over by a boat that was exceeding the 45MPH daylight limit proposed by HB-162... NOBODY!

How can you make such a statement when boat speeds are rarely given in USCG accident reports? How can you be so sure that hi speed wasn’t a factor in a collision? There have been boating fatalities in NH, which were the result of boat collisions, and I believe that excessive speed was a factor in some of these. Prove me wrong.

Faster speeds ALWAYS increases the chance of an accident happening.
If a lake is congested - higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is drinking – higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is not watching where they are going, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person breaks the 150 foot rule, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person has difficultly seeing another vessel, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.

Actually you have a very narrow view. You have very little experience paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee, but somehow you seem to know whats best for everyone? Perhaps you know what you want and what is best for you? If Lake Winnipesaukee were as dangerous as you & some of the other WinnFabs claim, we would have some sort of statistics to back it up.

Woodsy – I’m very tired of your personal attacks on my paddling abilities, and on my experience in your vain attempt to discredit my posts. I’ll put my abilities in a kayak against you or anyone else on this forum any time – but be prepared to be humiliated. How many miles did you paddle last year? I paddled nearly 300 miles on NH waters in 2005, and over 100 miles in 2004. 95% of my kayaking has been on NH's large lakes, and I’ve been out in all types of conditions.

You keep ignoring the fact that HB 162 would affect all NH lakes – do you actually think that Winni is the only lake in NH where powerboats go faster than 45 mph?

You cannot use the number of registered boats in statistics, because the registration requirements vary greatly between states. As I’ve posted many times the main reason that there haven’t been more fatalities on Winni is that relatively few paddlers venture out on the main lake – for fear of being run over. Winni does not have a good reputation among paddlers. This is not just my view – this is the view of all the NH paddlers that I know.

Just because you think there is something wrong when a recreational activity favors mechanical engines over human power, doesn't mean everybody else does. With that one blanket statement one could infer that you would be happier with a Lake Winnipesaukee with no power boats on it all.

No – that’s not what “favors” means. In this case I’m referring to “unfair partiality - favoritism.” To allow some boats to go as fast as they want, while completely disregarding the effect that action has on other boaters is favoritism.

[fatlazyless]

Check out today's www.citizen.com article, Effort launched to save boat speed limit bill, by Colin Manning.

It says the the estimated vote in the Senate now stands at 9 in favor and 15 opposed, and that the bill is doomed. By removing the Atlantic ocean tidal water area from the speed limits, the speed limits could gain two more supporters. By removing all lakes except Winnipesaukee, it would gain some more supporters. Hey, if they removed every lake including Winnipesaukee, it would get 24 supporters, a unanymous and united decision, huzza!

A good informative article, and worth a read. I'd post a link here except my links work about as well as my 32 year old aluminum Starcraft on a good day.

If for no other reason, I support the speed limits bill, so I could scoop up a 32' Formula, on the cheap, with dual 454hp & Bravo drives with open pipes. Maybe $995. with a good trailer w/ matching paint.......in that neighborhood!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Yes, I do dislike the folks who think it is their God given right to go as fast and be as loud as the want to without regard for other folks.


Seems your side is always arguing that all we need is the enforcement of the 150 rule. Glad to see you agree that the 150 rule is not doing the job and can never do the job. The people who want to go faster than 45 MPH are the minority. Why does your side argue that someone who wants to paddle across the broads is a nut? If the boat is capable of handling the waters then that person should be safe! Hard to be safe though when you have people going so fast that they cannot respond in time. So, sure I will stand with my comment of not liking the GFBL crowd.

The GFBL will ultimately lose. Who would have thought that 20 or 30 years ago you would have to go outside to smoke? Ultimately those that impose their dangerous behavior on the majority will lose out. It just takes time to get politicians to change the laws to respond to the times.

I do agree that the lake is too congested and something should be addressed but the first place to start is slow the boats down!

I think I can understand your problem by the way you pull out of thin air that I agree the 150' rule is not doing the job. I never said that and I don't believe that. I also never called anyone a nut, name calling belongs almost exclusively to your side. Read my post again, try to understand it. I also stated I don't think congestion is a problem.

I think you're as mistaken about the speed limit as you were about my post.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

Bone up on your facts before you make blanket statements. As with any type of vehicular accident, Boat speeds ARE ALWAYS GIVEN in an accident. They may be estimated as in the case of Littlefield/Hartman, or they may be known as in the video posted by APS. But they ARE ALWAYS LISTED in the official accident report!

I don't have to prove you wrong as I already have. I have already stated my position numerous times based facts & statistics from unbiased official government reports. Unlike you I don't get my information secondhand from an association that has an axe to grind against Hi-Performance boaters. If there were lots of collisions due to excessive speed, I have no doubt WinnFabs would have found them and brought them to light.

Since the inception of the BSC requirement, and the obvious exception of the Littlefield/Hartman accident, I ask you to show me one collision that was the result of speed in excess of the 45/25 as proposed by HB-162? Oh wait... you can't... Because there wasn't one! I ask you to prove your case! If you know the specifics of accidents that you infer occured due to excessive speed, post the info here so we can all research it.

By your own admission you have very little paddling time (also known as experience) on Lake Winnipesaukee. My statement was in reference to Lake Winnipesaukee only! In no way did I mean to disparage you or your paddling abilities. I have said it before that I have no doubt your a safe paddler. I also agree with you that you have as much right as anyone else to enjoy Lake Winnipesaukee. I am probably alot more moderate than you think.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As I’ve posted many times the main reason that there haven’t been more fatalities on Winni is that relatively few paddlers venture out on the main lake – for fear of being run over.

That is a blatanly false statement. Although one could infer that more boaters (regardless of type of boat) in a particular area would lead to more collisions and resulting fatalities. That is simply not the case. Boating accidents are down 68% in NH since the inception of the BSC requirement, while the number of boat registrations are up!

I most certainly can use the number of registered boats in the statistics. It is the standard set by and used by the USCG and NHMP. Sorry if you don't like using official government numbers. If you understood math & statistics, you would know that not having to register your kayak works to your favor. If we added another 50,000 or so canoes & kayaks to the registration numbers the death rate per 100,000 boats in NH would be even less.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Faster speeds ALWAYS increases the chance of an accident happening.
If a lake is congested - higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is drinking – higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is not watching where they are going, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person breaks the 150 foot rule, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person has difficultly seeing another vessel, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.

As for your statement quoted above I have to take a few exceptions.

1. Faster speed does not always increase the chance of an accident. If that were the case, most accidents would occur on interstate highways, not town streets.

2. If the lake is congested, higher speed makes it more dangerous. Only if you are traveling at high speed in a congested area. 35 MPH could be considered high speed some summer saturdays off the Weirs!

3. If a person is drinking – higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person is drinking, ANY SPEED, in ANY VEHICLE is dangerous. If a person is willing to disobey the existing DWI/BWI laws, then they are not going to care about a obeying a speed limit.

4. If a person is not watching where they are going, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person is not paying attention, they are dangerous at ANY SPEED. Just ask the guy in the stationary pontoon boat who was t-boned by a small SeaRay last summer. That collision occured at a speed much less than 45MPH. Had serious injury resutled, the operator of the SeaRay no doubt would have been charged with reckless operation.

5. If a person breaks the 150 foot rule, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person has violated the 150' safe passage law, it doesn't matter what speed he was traveling. If he passes with 50' of you at 45 or at 70 it really doesn't matter, He already violated the law. If he collides with you, then he will be charged with Reckless Operation... a much more serious offense than a speeding ticket.

6. If a person has difficultly seeing another vessel, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. How would a person have difficulty seeing another vessel? Because of the wind? Thats pretty much a crock, without protective eyewear, any on-plane speed can cause you to squint. To me this is the same as #4. If you can't see where you are going, or whats in front of you then you have no right going at ANY SPEED!

Four out of the six statements you made involve violating an already existing law.

Woodsy

[overlook]

Good one Woodsy!!!

From an earlier post, I believe the safe passage law is working in NH. Statiscally NH has one of the best stats. for accidents to boats registered ratio. Boater education can also be stated for increase of safety.
I agree that safe passage is the most broken law though, I am not afraid to say somthing to a operator, and I will.
Everstar: If you want to go out into the broads on a busy weekend, go ahead and do it. You should be safe, but most likly something will happen to ruin your run. It is like crossing the street at Time Square, there are better days to do it than others.
I personally paddle in coves and do not venture far from land. For me this how I get my best enjoyment on a run. Rivers have the best thrills, for me.
Speed is only a problem when the operator uses poor judgment.

Boat safe, boat smart.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Nice dance you did there with that one.

What about the nighttime proposed 25 mph limit. Can you make the same claim?

And your claim is incorrect anyway, there have been several fatal accidents at medium and high speeds. Just because the MP doesn't write down a speed on the report doesn't mean it aint so.

Please provide data to support your claim to these medium and high speed FATAL accidents ON WINNIPESAUKEE or at least IN NH.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Woodsy:
they are dangerous at ANY SPEED. Just ask the guy in the stationary pontoon boat who was t-boned by a small SeaRay last summer. That collision occured at a speed much less than 45MPH. Had serious injury resutled, the operator of the SeaRay no doubt would have been charged with reckless operation.

That's a problem I was not aware of! Are you saying the operator of the Sea-Ray WASN'T charged?

If NH Marine Patrol isn't doing it's job even when they have the ability to do so, then this brings up some serious questions.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As I’ve posted many times the main reason that there haven’t been more fatalities on Winni is that relatively few paddlers venture out on the main lake – for fear of being run over. Winni does not have a good reputation among paddlers. This is not just my view – this is the view of all the NH paddlers that I know.

Does this picture of a boat on the Broads cause you to feel fear? Why?

[JDeere]

So let's add another unenforceable rule and that will make things better.

Sure sounds like you are agreeing that the 150 foot rule is not enforcable.

How do you solve congestion? That's a tough one, limit access? Or is congestion really a problem? I don't think so except for a few select days.

Again although you qualify your response you are saying congestion is a problem. Winni has many problems but slower speeds are the start of solving the problems. Some folks just don’t have the capacity to understand the other side of an argument. All you folks argue is that I want to go fast because I want to and if you are afraid of it then get off the lake. Give me a break.

And why is it that when someone does not agree with you folks that you get nasty. No, your right I must be nuts to think slower is safer. I never called anyone paranoid but I do not think legislating slower speeds it quite what George Orwell was referring to when he wrote his book. Have you read it?

[Airwaves]

According to an article on the AP (copywritten so I can't copy and paste) it says HB 162 appears headed to defeat.

The article says some senators are toying with the idea of removing "tidal waters" from the bill while others are considering limiting it to Winni only, but the AP article (time stamped 1138EST 3/14/06) says the plan, as written, appears to have support of only 9 of 13 senate votes needed for passage.

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

Your analogy that more laws and regulations will result in a better society is frightening.
Its people like you who believe big brother should intervene in every aspect of our lives that realy scare me.
You are right about fast boats being the minority ! And thats why it isnt realy a problem , the numbers of boats going fast on the lake are few !
However enough people have spoken against HB162 (speedboaters or not) because they see it as just another chance for big brother to limit there freedoms and an overreaction to a systemic problem, overcrowding.
And then you have your #1 proponent, owner of a boat yard with 300+ wet slips and many more in the racks.. Talk about hypocrisy !

I agree with Rayhunt. We don't need the state of New Hampshire legislating their way into our lives any farther. That is the Liberal agenda. They always know what's better for you than you do. Live here in Mass for a while and you'll know what I mean.


The Breeze

Wave 'cause I'll be waving back

[sum-r breeze]

Woodsy,


Your biggest problem is you make WAY too much sense! Any time you make that much sense all at one time it makes them all EMOTIONAL and they can't process all those facts !!! lol


The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...
Bone up on your facts before you make blanket statements. As with any type of vehicular accident, Boat speeds ARE ALWAYS GIVEN in an accident. They may be estimated as in the case of Littlefield/Hartman, or they may be known as in the video posted by APS. But they ARE ALWAYS LISTED in the official accident report!

By “USCG accident reports”, I was referring the USCG boating statistics, which don’t include any specific speeds – sorry, my mistake for using the wrong terms. But, even so, have you looked at ALL the NH boating accident reports which involved a fatality? And, if speeds are just estimated how can know that none of these boats were traveling at speeds above 45mph?

There’s nothing at all false about my statement. There would likely be more fatalities if smaller and/or slower boats weren’t afraid to go out on the main lake.

I most certainly can use the number of registered boats in the statistics. It is the standard set by and used by the USCG and NHMP. Sorry if you don't like using official government numbers. If you understood math & statistics, you would know that not having to register your kayak works to your favor. If we added another 50,000 or so canoes & kayaks to the registration numbers the death rate per 100,000 boats in NH would be even less.

I actually know way more about math and statistics than you think. Statistics are meaningless unless the data is the same. In NH, boat registration includes sailboats and sailboards (over 12 feet long), and any vessel with a motor (even canoes with an electric motor), while some states only require that motorboats be registered.

Plus you're comparing states that have a much longer boating season than what we have in NH.

The other problem is that the USCG estimates that only about 10% of all boating accidents are actually reported. Some states do a much better job than others and report a much higher percentage of their boating accidents. So NH’s lower numbers could be nothing more than NH’s poor job of reporting accidents.

Personally I don’t see that NH’s boating accident numbers are very good.

Instead of using numbers of boats registered, try using square miles of inland water for comparison. Then you get for the years 2000 – 2004, with our neighboring states:
NH: 382 square miles and 320 accidents = 1 accident / 1.2 square miles of water
MA: 2,717 square miles and 266 accidents = 1 accident / 10.2 square miles of water
ME: 4,523 square miles and 286 accidents = 1 accident / 15.8 square miles of water
VT: 366 square miles and 28 accidents = 1 accident / 13.1 square miles of water

As for your statement quoted above I have to take a few exceptions.

Faster speeds ALWAYS increases the chance of an accident happening - Under equal conditions of course!!! I thought that last part was a given. Apparently not.


What I wrote was “higher speeds”, not excessive speeds, and not above the proposed speed limit speeds. So all my statements are true – whether you’ll admit it or not. The USCG states that many accidents have more than one factor as to the cause. You guys just love to dismiss speed as a factor whenever there’s any other possible cause given.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Sure sounds like you are agreeing that the 150 foot rule is not enforcable.



Again although you qualify your response you are saying congestion is a problem. Winni has many problems but slower speeds are the start of solving the problems. Some folks just don’t have the capacity to understand the other side of an argument. All you folks argue is that I want to go fast because I want to and if you are afraid of it then get off the lake. Give me a break.

And why is it that when someone does not agree with you folks that you get nasty. No, your right I must be nuts to think slower is safer. I never called anyone paranoid but I do not think legislating slower speeds it quite what George Orwell was referring to when he wrote his book. Have you read it?

First of all, read some of the previous posts, including your own, then come back and tell me who gets nasty. In fact look at your post quoted in this post, "Some folks just don't have the capacity to understand the other side of an argument", tell me who is being nasty.

I believe that the 150' rule is enforcable because I have seen MP enforce it many, many times, near the entrance of the Weirs channel.

Congestion, that is one of those nebulous terms, means different things to different people. Is the Weirs channel congested on the 4th of July, I would say the answer is yes. Will a speed limit solve that problem, if it is a problem? The answer is no. Is congestion a problem? Well I saw an overhead photograph someone had taken on the 4th of July and it didn't look congested to me. And, if you call that congested, will a speed limit "decongest" it? No.

Finally, I haven't seen anybody say "I want to go fast, if you're afraid get off the lake" except you. Another one of those inflamatory tactics used when logic and STATISTICS do not support your cause.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JDeere

All you folks argue is that I want to go fast because I want to and if you are afraid of it then get off the lake. Give me a break.[/COLOR]

And unless I'm wrong , I would read your opinion as "Slow down or get off the lake".

And the difference is ??????

[JDeere]

You guys (I assume) are sooooooooooooo easy to get cranked up it does make me smile!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

You guys (I assume) are sooooooooooooo easy to get cranked up it does make me smile!

I knew it, you were trolling, thanks for the honesty and the obvious commitment to your cause.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JDeere

You guys (I assume) are sooooooooooooo easy to get cranked up it does make me smile!

Well at least I found out where one of the 50,000 unemployed commedians in this country hangs out

[fatlazyless]

The photo of the boat up in #52 looks a lot like one of the Marine Patrol's three 27' patrols boats w/ the twin 150 Mercury outboards.

Here's a question for you. If the Marine Patrol officer in that boat hit a kayak while out patroling in the broads beacause neither the reflective orange pfd worn by the paddler, nor the dark blue kayak, nor the reflective white paddle blades were claimed to be visible and all blended into the two foot chop and could not be seen and it caused the death of the paddler. Would that end up as determined in a court to be an accident, a manslaughter, or a homicide, and why?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by JDeere

All you folks argue is that I want to go fast because I want to and if you are afraid of it then get off the lake. Give me a break

Too funny...

All you folks argue is that If you want to go fast then get off the lake and do it in the ocean or we'll pass a speed limit to force you off the Lake or deteriorate your experience at the Lake to cause you to leave the Lake. Why, because you want to; not because of safety. You want to do what you want to do when you want and where you want, without any input of common sense or reason or consideration of other users of the Lake - if it goes fast, it must go from the Lake.

Spin and fear is all I read and hear from the proponents.

"Give me a break" is sounding like a broken record from the proponent side of the issue.

You people are something else...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Is congestion a problem? Well I saw an overhead photograph someone had taken on the 4th of July and it didn't look congested to me. And, if you call that congested, will a speed limit "decongest" it? No.

How many of the "little-guy" boats did you count? (Inflatable, canoe, kayak, sail, surfboard). I couldn't find one!

It's not the number of boats that congest the lake's 44,000 acres; it's the speed of the boats that remain when the "little guys" stay home.

Originally Posted by ITD

Finally, I haven't seen anybody say "I want to go fast, if you're afraid get off the lake" except you. Another one of those inflamatory tactics used when logic and STATISTICS do not support your cause.

Check out Belmont Resident's "signature":

"If you're afraid of the lake - stay home".

[JDeere]

No, I was not trolling I am very serious about the speed limit issue. I do not understand the objections to it. Most of the time I feel as though I can argue a point and still remain dispassionate. You guys seem to get very cranked over anyone who thinks slower is safer. I mean be real a speed limit is not about “big brother” and it is not an infringement on ones freedom anymore than any other rules of society or law.

I do agree with the comments that have been made that a lot of the issue has to do with rudeness but rudeness seems to have become the norm. Since, we cannot outlaw rudeness anymore than we can instill common sense into people. My position is slower is better for the majority of the people on the lake.

Additionally I am truly confident that the speed limit will become law it is only a matter of time.

I hope this post doesn’t get you all cranked up again but I could use a morning smile with my coffee.

[fatlazyless]

If someone has spent $20-50,000.00 or more on a speed boat, and maybe is paying off a boat loan, then they do not want to have its' speed restricted by a 45-25 speed limit.

It would be interesting to learn what each poster has for a boat and how much it cost. Speed is a matter of scale. A smaller boat gives you a feelng of being closer to the water, gets up on plane at slower speeds, and doesn't require such fast speeds for a speed rush. It's all about scale, just think about the difference between a $4500. 18' aluminum outboard boat and a $45000. 32' inboard fiberglass boat. Is it really necessary to have and use these huge and powerfull boats to enjoy boating?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

No, I was not trolling I am very serious about the speed limit issue. I do not understand the objections to it. Most of the time I feel as though I can argue a point and still remain dispassionate. You guys seem to get very cranked over anyone who thinks slower is safer. I mean be real a speed limit is not about “big brother” and it is not an infringement on ones freedom anymore than any other rules of society or law.

I do agree with the comments that have been made that a lot of the issue has to do with rudeness but rudeness seems to have become the norm. Since, we cannot outlaw rudeness anymore than we can instill common sense into people. My position is slower is better for the majority of the people on the lake.

Additionally I am truly confident that the speed limit will become law it is only a matter of time.

I hope this post doesn’t get you all cranked up again but I could use a morning smile with my coffee.

I'll try to remain to calm and not call people names or tell them they don't have the ability to understand the other side of an argument or call them "least intelligent", I really will. You are making progress with the rudeness admission, keep looking for the statistics and evidence to support your speed limit, maybe you'll finally come to the realization that it's not necessary. I hope I've given you something to smile about.

[JDeere]

keep looking for the statistics and evidence to support your speed limit

There is no way to make an argument that you will listen to. How many posts have there been showing that the Coast Guard list speed as “I think” number 4 on the list of causes of accidents. How can you reasonable argue that slower is not safer??????

[Island Lover]

JDeere


You are correct, speed is the #4 contributing cause of boating accidents.

The kicker to that is that the #1, #2 and #3 causes are already addressed by New Hampshire laws!

Speed is the only major contributing factor that is ignored by our laws.

[Cal]

Speed can be listed as a factor at 10 mph while docking by the Coast Guard standards. What's that got to do with 45 or 65 mph?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

There is no way to make an argument that you will listen to. How many posts have there been showing that the Coast Guard list speed as “I think” number 4 on the list of causes of accidents. How can you reasonable argue that slower is not safer??????

If I accept the premise of your question as you obviously have I would have to argue for a speed limit of headway speed. Since I don't accept the premise of your question, but am truly trying to understand your side of the argument I look at the statistic that is continually presented. That statistic, based on an "approximation" (with a tolerance ) is an accident where the boat may have been travelling 28 mph, is the only "evidence" I have seen. I listen to all the "reasons" for the speed limit and at first say, wow there must be a big problem here. Then I look at the public information on accidents on the Lake and find no problem a speed limit will solve. I have spent hundreds of hours over the last few summers on Lake Winnipesaukee on a powerboat, sailboat, row boat, canoe, paddle boat and PWC. I have never seen a speed problem.

The Coast Guard report lists "Excessive Speed" as a the forth operator controllable factor for fatal accidents nationwide. "Excessive speed" does not mean speed in excess of 45 mph. Trying to go 10 mph in the Weirs channel on a busy Saturday is considered an excessive speed. How many times does that need to be explained?

I would expect profound evidence, from the Lake where you are trying to impose this law, supporting your argument. There isn't even weak evidence, certainly there isn't enough to support this speed limit. Find another way to eliminate the class of boaters you don't like. Enjoy your coffee.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

How many of the "little-guy" boats did you count? (Inflatable, canoe, kayak, sail, surfboard). I couldn't find one!

Oh, they are there, I saw them when I was out on my sailboat that day. You can't see them in the picture because they are too small. Maybe the pilot can fly lower next time.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It's not the number of boats that congest the lake's 44,000 acres; it's the speed of the boats that remain when the "little guys" stay home.

Ah yes, "Acres per Second", no agenda here.

No mention of speed in the definition of congest......

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=congestion

con·gest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-jst)
v. con·gest·ed, con·gest·ing, con·gests
v. tr.

1. To overfill or overcrowd: Trucks congested the tunnel.
2. Pathology. To cause the accumulation of excessive blood or tissue fluid in (a vessel or organ).

v. intr.
To become congested.

[Latin congerere, congest-, to heap up, crowd together : com-, com- + gerere, to carry.]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Check out Belmont Resident's "signature":

"If you're afraid of the lake - stay home".

What am I missing? That doesn't say: "I want to go fast, if you're afraid get off the lake"

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by JDeere

There is no way to make an argument that you will listen to. How many posts have there been showing that the Coast Guard list speed as “I think” number 4 on the list of causes of accidents. How can you reasonable argue that slower is not safer??????

Slower is safer, everyone knows that. The question is really "how slow and how safe?". If the proposed speed limit was a bit higher, I think many more people would support it. 45 is quite slow; I can hit that speed in my driveway. We have roads posted at 55 that cars must share with cyclists and pedestrians here in NH. Cars can legally pass within inches of said cyclists and pedestrians too. In some more realistic states, the same type of roads are posted at 70, imagine that! The death toll must be HUGE!!!

I cannot imagine how anyone could think that 45 is as fast as anyone should ever go with all the visibility and space the lake offers combined with 150 feet of space between boats. It's just as ridiculous as saying "slower is not safer".

[Quilt Lady]

has everyone forgotten that before the GFBL boats got their nickname they were called "Offshore" boats. And that the most vocal opponents of the speed limit bill are the "Offshore" groups, many of whom neither live or boat in New Hampshire. Using their reasoning, I have a car capable of going in excess of 150mph so speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on my freedom to go fast. However, if I do wish to go fast, I can take advantage of the car club's date at NHIS or go to Lyme Rock and scare myself silly. Race tracks are designed for speed. "Offshore" boats are designed for wide open spaces like the ocean (which the speed limit does not affect).

It's not a question of restricting freedom but rather Public Safety. The Public is the majority of the people, not a handful of special interests.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The photo of the boat up in #52 looks a lot like one of the Marine Patrol's three 27' patrols boats w/ the twin 150 Mercury outboards.

Here's a question for you. If the Marine Patrol officer in that boat hit a kayak while out patroling in the broads beacause neither the reflective orange pfd worn by the paddler, nor the dark blue kayak, nor the reflective white paddle blades were claimed to be visible and all blended into the two foot chop and could not be seen and it caused the death of the paddler. Would that end up as determined in a court to be an accident, a manslaughter, or a homicide, and why?

Was that the approached that APS used with the CG accident video?

Will a speed limit prevent what is observed in the photo?

A bicycle type flag would afford visibility of the kayak; but that would require common sense to self-protect and the proponents of HB162 are dependent upon legislation to self-protect themselves from their own actions.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

has everyone forgotten that before the GFBL boats got their nickname they were called "Offshore" boats. And that the most vocal opponents of the speed limit bill are the "Offshore" groups, many of whom neither live or boat in New Hampshire. Using their reasoning, I have a car capable of going in excess of 150mph so speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on my freedom to go fast. However, if I do wish to go fast, I can take advantage of the car club's date at NHIS or go to Lyme Rock and scare myself silly. Race tracks are designed for speed. "Offshore" boats are designed for wide open spaces like the ocean (which the speed limit does not affect).

It's not a question of restricting freedom but rather Public Safety. The Public is the majority of the people, not a handful of special interests.

I didn't forget, I just don't really care about the origin of boat names that much. My boat is called a cuddy cabin, should the style of my boat exclude it from certain navigable waterways?

Have you forgotten how "The Broads" got it's name? It's from being wide, open, and spacious.

The fact is, "offshore" boats are excellent for a lake like Winnipesaukee because they ride well in chop and it's a choppy lake. I don't own one though and don't really like them much becuase they lack space and comfort for their price tags.

Don't be misled, there are no "offshore" boats on the market that have the fuel capacity to cross an ocean. They are really "nearshore" machines. An "offshore" boat would be more like a supertanker or container ship. Those "offshore" boats you hate really operate quite close to land (in the whole scheme of things), when in salt water. Not that much different than an area like the broads.

I don't care how fast a boat goes, I just wish they were quieter.

I totally agree with your suggestion of abolishing speed limits on roads. Roads like 93 and 95 should be speed limit free like they are in Germany. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to travel at a reasonable speed without worry of tickets and insurance hikes? I'd love to be able to cruise at 120+ on my motorcycles. Oh well, that'll never happen.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

has everyone forgotten that before the GFBL boats got their nickname they were called "Offshore" boats. And that the most vocal opponents of the speed limit bill are the "Offshore" groups, many of whom neither live or boat in New Hampshire. Using their reasoning, I have a car capable of going in excess of 150mph so speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on my freedom to go fast. However, if I do wish to go fast, I can take advantage of the car club's date at NHIS or go to Lyme Rock and scare myself silly. Race tracks are designed for speed. "Offshore" boats are designed for wide open spaces like the ocean (which the speed limit does not affect).

It's not a question of restricting freedom but rather Public Safety. The Public is the majority of the people, not a handful of special interests.

On the contrary:
off·shore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfshôr, -shr, f-)
adj.
Moving or directed away from the shore: an offshore wind.

Located at a distance from the shore: an offshore mooring; offshore oil-drilling platforms.
Located or based in a foreign country and not subject to tax laws: offshore bank accounts; offshore investments.

Where in the definition of "offshore" does it exclusively relate to the ocean? Furthermore, I'd bet a lot of money that the vast majority of people standing up against this useless legislation are taxpayers in the State of NH that are getting sick and tired (like me) of paying and paying, while at the same time watching their freedoms and rights being legislated away and eroded by the Dr. Feelgoods in Concord that claim they know what's best for us. Live Free or Die still means something to me.

[NHFreedom]

I'll agree with the notion that slower is safer in the sense that if I hit another boat going 2 MPH the potential for killing someone would be less that if I hit the same boat at 50 MPH. I think the real question is what level of risk are we as citizens willing to accept to maintain our personal liberties? Are we willing to accept on average 2-3 deaths per year on our lakes?

150 fatalities on our roads last year and there isn't the same chorus of people looking to lower speed limits on the highways. 2 or 3 fatalities on the lake and all of a sudden we NEED speed limits. You know what I think? I think 2 or 3 fatalities a year is an acceptable number. Everything we do has some inherent danager - crossing the road for instance probably killed more people last year than boating accidents.

I agree this is a misguided attempt -a conspiracy by old timers and tree huggers - to get the high powered boats off the lake. If that's the case come out an say it, don't cloak your real agenda in a proposal that is misguided and limits the freedom of the responsible majority.

I hate to propose any idea that would increase safety, because I think the current level of inherent risk is low. Maybe we should focus on laws that reduce fear, since fear is what seems to be pervasive among those who canoe and kayak. I have some ideas for laws. First, make all kayaks and canoes florescent glow-in-the-dark pink, that way no sober boater will miss them. Secondly, pass stiffer penalties for irresponsible boating. If you get caught drunk behind the wheel your boat should be seized on the spot - this includes kayaks and canoes.

The issue becomes fear from stupidity, not fear from speed. There will always be a stupid minority on the lake. Some have argued that we cannot legislate stupidity and I agree, but what we can do is make the consequences to stupid behavoir so stiff that maybe stupid people will think twice.

Lastly, I must say that the points made by the canoers and kayaks are lame. First of all, you have just as much of a right to be out in the broads on the 4th of July weekend as I have to blow by you at 150 ft distance at 100 MPH, just don't complain that its dangerous. Remember what I said about stupidity? Use your head, use common sense...stick to the coves if you feel that you're in danger. There are a lot of things I refrain from doing that one could argue reduce my freedom because I don't feel comfortable doing them in the surrounding environment. Its not my right to change that environment such that the masses are penalized. If you like to canoe in peace and quiet, go to Squam. If you like the ocean experience without so many boats, go to the ocean. If you like a large lake, big waves, and lots of fast boats, come to Winni!

[Quilt Lady]

so we are splitting hairs over the real name of these boat but we all know which ones we are talking about. I never said I "hated" these boats. There is one nearby whose operator is respectful of the large number of boats in this area. He quietly goes out to the Broads to have his fun and quietly returns. No problem there.

I said "using the reasoning" of the GFBL crowd: I never said I favored abolishing speed limits on our roads. Heavens Forbid! What kind of moron (no insult meant to real morons) would scream at 90 mph around a school or through downtown Wolfeboro!?!? No, rules (including speed limits) are put in place to try and protect the public in general from the actions of the irresponsible few. And the irresponsible few should be held accountable for their actions . . . big time.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

has everyone forgotten that before the GFBL boats got their nickname they were called "Offshore" boats. And that the most vocal opponents of the speed limit bill are the "Offshore" groups, many of whom neither live or boat in New Hampshire. Using their reasoning, I have a car capable of going in excess of 150mph so speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on my freedom to go fast. However, if I do wish to go fast, I can take advantage of the car club's date at NHIS or go to Lyme Rock and scare myself silly. Race tracks are designed for speed. "Offshore" boats are designed for wide open spaces like the ocean (which the speed limit does not affect).

It's not a question of restricting freedom but rather Public Safety. The Public is the majority of the people, not a handful of special interests.

FYI....Not all vocal opponents to HB162 are "off-shore"/GFBL owners.

[fatlazyless]

Unlike newspaper letters and a face-to-face conversation, anonymous posters on internet forums tend be be quite frank in voicing their opinions.


post #77

"Roads like 93 and 95 should be speed limit free."

post #79

"...as I have to blow by you at 150 feet distance at 100mph, just don't complain it is dangerous."

Thankyou both for your opinions and for commenting frankly.

Hopefully, your posts will be read by some of the 24 NH State Senators who are undecided and who could support a 45-25 speed limit for just Lake Winnipesaukee.

I've been on Lake Winnipesaukee since 1992, paying property taxes and supporting many local business', and I enjoy using an 18' aluminum outboard boat. Six gallons of gas lasts all day, it's quiet and it gets up on plane at about 18mph.

As I have said before, going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. It is, in fact, a very fast speed!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

...And the irresponsible few should be held accountable for their actions . . . big time.

You are exactly correct. The irresponsible FEW should be held accountable for thier actions. The rest of us responsible boaters do NOT need to be held accountable for the actions of the irresponsible few. Period.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Quilt Lady

so we are splitting hairs over the real name of these boat but we all know which ones we are talking about. I never said I "hated" these boats. There is one nearby whose operator is respectful of the large number of boats in this area. He quietly goes out to the Broads to have his fun and quietly returns. No problem there.

I said "using the reasoning" of the GFBL crowd: I never said I favored abolishing speed limits on our roads. Heavens Forbid! What kind of moron (no insult meant to real morons) would scream at 90 mph around a school or through downtown Wolfeboro!?!? No, rules (including speed limits) are put in place to try and protect the public in general from the actions of the irresponsible few. And the irresponsible few should be held accountable for their actions . . . big time.

I knew what you meant. My post was a bit "tongue in cheek". I also just assumed you hated them, my aplogies for that.

You may think the rules are there to protect the general public from the irresponsible few, but the irresponsible, by definition, don't really care about rules. So what really happens is that the law-abiding, responsible folks are punished with absurd laws aimed at the very people who have a history of ignoring laws.

I am not in favor of irresponsible boating, I just don't think an absurdly low speed limit is warranted, yet. Someday, I may feel differently, but I boat on Winnipesaukee all the time, at a typical speed of 30-35 MPH and just fail to see any problems caused by speed. The biggest problems I see are dumb boaters in boats that probably won't even reach 45 MPH.

My comment on no speed limits was for divided, limited access highways, not school zones or downtown Wolfeboro. That said, back roads should have a limit of 60 MPH except where they pass through densely popluated areas where the limit should be 35 or 30, just like England or Ireland. And like pretty much like the rest of the world, every road outside of densely populated areas should have a dashed center line everywhere so that overtaking is legal everywhere, even if it's not smart. Oh, one other thing I'd like, while I'm dreaming: motorcycles should be able to lane split legally in traffic.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Unlike newspaper letters and a face-to-face conversation, anonymous posters on internet forums tend be be quite frank in voicing their opinions.


post #77

"Roads like 93 and 95 should be speed limit free."

post #78

"...as I have to blow by you at 150 feet distance at 100mph, just don't complain it is dangerous."

Thankyou both for your opinions and for commenting frankly.

Hopefully, your posts will be read by some of the 24 NH State Senators who are undecided and who could support a 45-25 speed limit for just Lake Winnipesaukee.

I've been on Lake Winnipesaukee since 1992, paying property taxes and supporting many local business', and I enjoy using an 18' aluminum outboard boat. Six gallons of gas lasts all day, it's quiet and it gets up on plane at about 18mph.

As I have said before, going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. It is, in fact, a very fast speed!

Hmmm, Dave R. would like to ride on the autobahn someday, so what. Post #78, new member, 1st post, day before the vote, inflamatory remarks. Maybe the guy is sincere, maybe he's a shill from your side, I don't know. Saw the same thing happen over at another forum,guy going around with Fat Jack, I think, referenced on this forum, go figure.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Unlike newspaper letters and a face-to-face conversation, anonymous posters on internet forums tend be be quite frank in voicing their opinions.


post #77

"Roads like 93 and 95 should be speed limit free."

My last name is Roman. No anonymity now. I use the same screen name in a few forums and have never been secretive about my identity. My Senator assured me, just yesterday in fact, he'd vote against the boat speed limit because he is against the boat speed limit. I'm sure my opinions about driving on 93 or 95 have absolutely no bearing on his decision.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hmmm, Dave R. would like to ride on the autobahn someday, so what. Post #78, new member, 1st post, day before the vote, inflamatory remarks. Maybe the guy is sincere, maybe he's a shill from your side, I don't know. Saw the same thing happen over at another forum,guy going around with Fat Jack, I think, referenced on this forum, go figure.

I have driven extensively on the autobahn, no desire to go over there again... Works really well even though the lanes are narrower than here and trucks are limited to <60 MPH. Of course, Germany (and Europe in general for that matter) requires substantially more training to get a driver's license than we do. Funny how speed limit proponents would rather just dumb things down for everybody instead of educating the folks who really need it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by NHFreedom

I'll agree with the notion that slower is safer in the sense that if I hit another boat going 2 MPH the potential for killing someone would be less that if I hit the same boat at 50 MPH. I think the real question is what level of risk are we as citizens willing to accept to maintain our personal liberties? Are we willing to accept on average 2-3 deaths per year on our lakes?

I’m not willing to accept any deaths on our lakes.

Apparently you haven't noticed that here’s a huge difference between highways and lakes. Highways are for high speed transportation – their main function is to get from on place to another. Lakes are for recreation – there’s no real need for speed on lakes, because you’re already there.

The real question is what gives you the right to put your liberties above the liberties of others? My personal liberties are being tread upon by people like you – who demand to go fast, no mater how it impacts others. My only way to fight back is to push for laws that will protect my rights.

It’s pretty easy to act brave out on a lake in a big powerboat. What is lame are the powerboaters like you, who think that there’s nothing wrong with bullying your way through our waters.

It’s very different out there, when you’re sitting below the waterline. I’d love to see how you would do in a kayak - with a powerboat screaming by - just 150 feet away - at 100 mph. I bet your cockpit would be wet – and I’m not talking about lake water.

Hey, if you’re having trouble seeing kayaks, maybe you need to slow down a bit. I’ve never had any trouble spotting another kayak, not matter what color they are.

[NHFreedom]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hmmm, Dave R. would like to ride on the autobahn someday, so what. Post #78, new member, 1st post, day before the vote, inflamatory remarks. Maybe the guy is sincere, maybe he's a shill from your side, I don't know. Saw the same thing happen over at another forum,guy going around with Fat Jack, I think, referenced on this forum, go figure.

Just to quell fears and set the record straight, I'm firmly an opponent and I have no connection with any other forum members. I simply made a point in my previous post (regarding 100mph comment) that canoers and kayakers should act in manner consistent with their own risk tolerance and if that means staying out of the broads on the weekends then so be it. Again, my perspective on this is based on two factors: 1. my own self interest. 2. my willingness to accept a certain risk level before giving up personal liberties. My slant is based more on my second factor than my first because if people were dying on a weekly basis from speeding boats I would even favor a speed limit.

I agree education works as long as those being educated actually care. Those who don't care never will, and no law - be it a speed limit, a safe passing distance, or some other measure - will serve to protect responsible boaters from these people.

To be quite frank, I don't have a boat that goes much faster than 45mph, but I do have 2 jetskis that do 70MPH and I don't particular want to lose my right to do 50,60,70 mph. I have never been cited by marine patrol and consider myself a very safe boater who knows the laws of the lake. Why should I and other responsible individuals like me be penalized by a speed limit? To reduce the fear of others of fast moving boats? We all have phobias, if fast boats are your phobia then stay off the lake.

If it were obvious a speed limit would reduce fatalities then maybe I'd reconsider, but up until now I've seen no evidence from supporters that this is the case. What I have seen is supports bicker over the estimated speed of a boat that was involved in the only fatality in the last 5 years that occured at a speed possibly higher than the proposed speed.

I hate to see posts that equate boating to driving for the purpose of justifying a speed limit because they are non-comparable. I previously mentioned driving in relation to risk tolerance by making the point that many more people are killed annually on NH roads than on NH lakes, yet there isn't nearly as much support to reduce speed limits on highways. What's interesting is that more people usually die in the winter on Winnipesaukee in either snowmobiling accidents or ice house accidents than during the summer, yet again there is little support by unbiased "safety" proponents to pass laws that prevent people from going on the lake in the winter. Why? Because these deaths are usually the result of stupidity and as we all know only Darwinian evolution will solve that problem.

Us opponents should all band together, pool some money, and sure up opposition by buying those senators who actually may favor this bill a 40' Fountain...maybe that would sway their vote.

[jeffk]

[QUOTE=NHFreedom]
What's interesting is that more people usually die in the winter on Winnipesaukee in either snowmobiling accidents or ice house accidents than during the summer, yet again there is little support by unbiased "safety" proponents to pass laws that prevent people from going on the lake in the winter. Why? Because these deaths are usually the result of stupidity and as we all know only Darwinian evolution will solve that problem.
QUOTE]

Another reason is that some of the "safety" people are primarily concerned about their own safety. If an idiot does something stupid and gets themselves killed that is unfortunate but no one gets riled up because it is not a threat to them. If there was concern about safety in general we would require safe boating courses for unpowered vehicles as well because there are significant numbers of deaths in these boats that have nothing to do with external factors but are only the result of "operator failure".

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by NHFreedom

Just to quell fears and set the record straight, I'm firmly an opponent and I have no connection with any other forum members. I simply made a point in my previous post (regarding 100mph comment) that canoers and kayakers should act in manner consistent with their own risk tolerance and if that means staying out of the broads on the weekends then so be it. Again, my perspective on this is based on two factors: 1. my own self interest. 2. my willingness to accept a certain risk level before giving up personal liberties. My slant is based more on my second factor than my first because if people were dying on a weekly basis from speeding boats I would even favor a speed limit.

I agree education works as long as those being educated actually care. Those who don't care never will, and no law - be it a speed limit, a safe passing distance, or some other measure - will serve to protect responsible boaters from these people.

To be quite frank, I don't have a boat that goes much faster than 45mph, but I do have 2 jetskis that do 70MPH and I don't particular want to lose my right to do 50,60,70 mph. I have never been cited by marine patrol and consider myself a very safe boater who knows the laws of the lake. Why should I and other responsible individuals like me be penalized by a speed limit? To reduce the fear of others of fast moving boats? We all have phobias, if fast boats are your phobia then stay off the lake.

If it were obvious a speed limit would reduce fatalities then maybe I'd reconsider, but up until now I've seen no evidence from supporters that this is the case. What I have seen is supports bicker over the estimated speed of a boat that was involved in the only fatality in the last 5 years that occured at a speed possibly higher than the proposed speed.

I hate to see posts that equate boating to driving for the purpose of justifying a speed limit because they are non-comparable. I previously mentioned driving in relation to risk tolerance by making the point that many more people are killed annually on NH roads than on NH lakes, yet there isn't nearly as much support to reduce speed limits on highways. What's interesting is that more people usually die in the winter on Winnipesaukee in either snowmobiling accidents or ice house accidents than during the summer, yet again there is little support by unbiased "safety" proponents to pass laws that prevent people from going on the lake in the winter. Why? Because these deaths are usually the result of stupidity and as we all know only Darwinian evolution will solve that problem.

Us opponents should all band together, pool some money, and sure up opposition by buying those senators who actually may favor this bill a 40' Fountain...maybe that would sway their vote.

NH Freedom,
Please scroll up to post #34 and you'll see you are not alone in your thinking.
Nobody wants to take the BULL by the horns and tell these people they can't impose their fear on us with legislation. You go out on the big Lake you need to play with the big boys(maybe a 40' Fountain)

The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll Be waving back

[JDeere]

Put aside all the arguments pro and con for a minute.

If the majority of NH residents wants a speed limit and think it would enhance their safety then that is the end of the argument. There is no way to win the argument with those opposed to the speed limit. The out of state opponents have no business in this argument.

The reality is that if go slower I have more time to get out of your way and live another day.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Put aside all the arguments pro and con for a minute.

If the majority of NH residents wants a speed limit and think it would enhance their safety then that is the end of the argument. There is no way to win the argument with those opposed to the speed limit. The out of state opponents have no business in this argument.

The reality is that if go slower I have more time to get out of your way and live another day.

Where is the proof that the majority of NH residents want a speed limit? Just because some phony poll of 600 people said so? If this case were properly presented with facts instead of fear, then put to a statewide vote of the residents themselves (no polls, no legislature), it would still go down in flames .

[ITD]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Put aside all the arguments pro and con for a minute.

If the majority of NH residents wants a speed limit and think it would enhance their safety then that is the end of the argument. There is no way to win the argument with those opposed to the speed limit. The out of state opponents have no business in this argument.

The reality is that if go slower I have more time to get out of your way and live another day.

"The reality" is that there is no problem. The proponents of this bill took their campaign to the public, problem is they weren't honest. They talked about 150 mph boats, like that was the standard speed for the lake, it is not. They talked about the children, they threw that in for good measure. They talked about wakes and shore erosion, won't be stopped by a speed limit. They talked about congestion, once again speed limit no solution. They talked about all the deaths due to speeds above the limit, only problem, they couldn't find any so they used the Littlefield incident and spun it. Now we're down to:"The reality is that if go slower I have more time to get out of your way and live another day.". You've got nothing to support your argument.

As far as the out of state comment, tell me I don't have to pay my NH property tax anymore, stop the out of state proponents from talking, come clean about the spin and exaggeration , then maybe I'll shut up, otherwise prove your case.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If someone has spent $20-50,000.00 or more on a speed boat, and maybe is paying off a boat loan, then they do not want to have its' speed restricted by a 45-25 speed limit.

It would be interesting to learn what each poster has for a boat and how much it cost. Speed is a matter of scale. A smaller boat gives you a feelng of being closer to the water, gets up on plane at slower speeds, and doesn't require such fast speeds for a speed rush. It's all about scale, just think about the difference between a $4500. 18' aluminum outboard boat and a $45000. 32' inboard fiberglass boat. Is it really necessary to have and use these huge and powerfull boats to enjoy boating?

It is very interesting isn't it! Many of us have stated numerous times the types of boats we have and the top speed. Especially, when we were testifying to the Rep's or Senator's.

Personally, I have had Four Winns Cuddy Cabin, then a Larson Cruiser and now that I own a home and don't live on the boat, we now have a Sea Ray Bow Rider.

The max speeds of these boats varied from 38mph to 42mph.

Obviously, I can not exceed the proposed speed limit. However, I am very opposed to HB162. I am for safety. I have two small children that boat with me and I use common sense and education to ensure their safety!!

Many of the people in opposition believe that Laws should only be passed when supported by facts and data. Not witch hunts or discrimination.

I may not always agree with what others do or how they behave, but we can not legislate on the minority and without data.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Put aside all the arguments pro and con for a minute.

If the majority of NH residents wants a speed limit and think it would enhance their safety then that is the end of the argument.

The reality is that if go slower I have more time to get out of your way and live another day.

Good point, other than the fact that it's irrelevant. NH does not make laws by a popular vote. We have a legislature for that. We carefully (hopefully) elect them and pay them (poorly) to make decisions like this. Our founding fathers were very careful when the government was formed. They knew that popular does not always = good and tried to make sure that the Senate would consist of only the wisest and most experienced folks who would not be easily swayed by public opinion. This key point is often misunderstood and folks tend to put Representatives and Senators in the same class.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by JDeere

....If the majority of NH residents wants a speed limit and think it would enhance their safety then that is the end of the argument...

Of course the key word is "IF". One of the reasons NH and most free countries have representive democracy instead of pure demeocracy is time. The process gives people time to understand the issues and elect representatives to support their ideas. So in the long term, the voters of NH will decide this issue by electing people. Right now this process seems to have stopped a reactionary response, to a request from a special interest group. JDeere is right, "IF" the voters really want this law, eventually they will get it. That's a big "IF"

Originally Posted by JDeere

...The out of state opponents have no business in this argument...

Freedom of speech isn't about showing boobs at a football game or saying the f-word on the radio, it's about political discussion and debate. I'm not sure why people's addresses are an issue.

[Seaplane Pilot]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/live/senate.html

Debate is currently going on.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If someone has spent $20-50,000.00 or more on a speed boat, and maybe is paying off a boat loan, then they do not want to have its' speed restricted by a 45-25 speed limit.

It would be interesting to learn what each poster has for a boat and how much it cost. Speed is a matter of scale. A smaller boat gives you a feelng of being closer to the water, gets up on plane at slower speeds, and doesn't require such fast speeds for a speed rush. It's all about scale, just think about the difference between a $4500. 18' aluminum outboard boat and a $45000. 32' inboard fiberglass boat. Is it really necessary to have and use these huge and powerfull boats to enjoy boating?

My boat cost me $36,000, used, and I had to drive to and from Indianapolis to get it. It is not a speed boat. It's a clean and reliable 25' cuddy cabin that sleeps 2 adults and 2 kids for a somewhat comfortable weekend, or makes a great day boat for 7-10 people to enjoy. We use it for both purposes, though only as a day boat on winnipesaukee because sadly, it's illegal to sleep at anchor and we trailer exclusively. It's quiet and tops out around 48 to 53 MPH depending on the load. It rarely exceeds 35 MPH and spends most of it's time either at anchor or cruising at 28-32 MPH. An 18 foot aluminum boat would be just fine if I had a lake house (not on an island though...), but I don't.

If I wish to spend a day on the water with friends or family that have no boat, I must have a boat big enough to accomodate them or a place on the lake. $36,000 is a whole lot easier to justify than, say $400,000 (minumum???) for a lake house I can use, at most, 90 days of the year due to work constraints. Retirement will likely change that philosophy and I may become your neighbor someday... For now, I probably spend less on gas, upkeep, depreciation, and the occasional lake house rental than most lake front home owners pay in property taxes. It's a simple matter of economics.

A 45-25 speed limit will not affect the way I boat AT ALL, EVER. I just oppose the idea and love a good debate.

[Lakewinniboater]

As of this morning.... HB162 is dead for now. Voting is done.

I truly hope that everyone can make ammends and continue to try and support education and the Marine Patrol.

Have a great day,