...eeek.....it's back.....eek....oh-no!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Gosh not only people in canoes etc. but what about people who use our roads to bicycles or even tricycles on no reason they should get off free either. I think you should contact your rep. and demand they introduce a bill to stop this flagrant abuse. Maybe a smaller fee for a canoe since the only use one paddle but a kayaker with the double paddle should pay more!!! We must stop this type of abuse!

I think someone needs to chill.
>>
Oh…………I forgot to mention.
>>
The speed limit is coming!!! Hip Hip Hoooooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy.
>>

Chill? Honestly I am more upset about my tax bill than a speed limit coming. It will really not have much if any effect on me, my boats barely break 50mph. Do I want one? Hell no. It is a useless, unwarranted law that has yet to be proven necessary, started by a group with what I believe to be hidden agendas hiding behind a pitch of fear and claims of safety issues on the lake.

Let it come, we shall be hearing a lot more from WINNFABS when nothing changes. What's next?

As far as registrations for non-powered vessels my intent was to touch in the fact that this new law will cost $$$, extra equipment, more manpower, etc to attempt to enforce. Looking at how MP is funded the people asking for this should also consider the costs involved to put it in place, and should have a plan to help fund it. Spreading it out a bit so that not only the power boaters are sucking up the cost would be good. If this is truly about safety then I would think that users of non-powered vessels who "will benefit" from this should help fund it.

Maybe those big, fast moving cars should slow down. There are speed limits ya know...

the lecherous energizer bunny

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

WinnFabs picked 45MPH because thats what they have for a speed limit in MA and over on Lake George NY. There isn't ANY statistical data to support that 45 is a good number, its just an arbitrary number. {snip}

As Gavia Immer said above, double and triple the 45 mph and you're into serious territory. The question is when are you into dangerous territory. There is no single number that's applicable to all places, all times and all situations. A speed that's perfectly appropriate for the Broads on a Wednesday afternoon is not likely to be a safe speed to use just outside of the Weirs on a July 4'th weekend with the sun in your eyes. Seems to me that 45 mph is neither fish nor fowl. It's too restrictive in a lot of times and places and not safe in others. I understand that such things are compromises but this one is just wrong. I would urge people to think about how they would encode what they think is speed proper for the circumstances into a rule. I would ask to people not what they feel is safe but what they know is unsafe (and how they know it).

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

To get a read with my windsurfer I had to strap TWO licence plates to my boddy to make it work. Prior to that we were getting VERY erratic readings.

'Happy that only two license plates were needed to get a likeable radar reading.

Marine radar in other states (as posed below) doesn't require any license plate:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...If the speed limit comes, and nothing changes, then what?? What will the new complaint be?? Call the MP, that boat was going faster than 45MPH...!"

As Dave R points out, speeds over 45 will produce rooster tails (plus a huge spray plume) that will identify it as excessive to the MPs.

Any news event on the lake will collect as many as seven MPs at one time: evasion is futile.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...It is truly amazing to me the complete willingness of some to take away somebody's civil liberty..."

From Wikipedia:
"...Basic civil liberties include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. There are also the rights to due process, to a fair trial and to privacy..."

Form a line at the rear to get that essential civil liberty for speedboating.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The State of New Hampshire has not had a boating fatality as the result of a collision in the last four years!! ..."

Last I checked, that's the way it's supposed to work.

[Cal]

"...Basic civil liberties include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. There are also the rights to due process, to a fair trial and to privacy..."

In case you haven't noticed.....we've already lost most of these

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The State of New Hampshire has not had a boating fatality as the result of a collision in the last four years!!

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{snip} Last I checked, that's the way it's supposed to work.

Amazing, how did that happen ? I mean with no speed limits and all them dangerous boats out there creating all that anarchy, I'd have thought we'd have dozens of collisons each and every year. That not being the case it seems it's not quite so bad out there after all. That would seem to be a case for and not your .

[Island Life]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Amazing, how did that happen ? I mean with no speed limits and all them dangerous boats out there creating all that anarchy, I'd have thought we'd have dozens of collisons each and every year. That not being the case it seems it's not quite so bad out there after all. That would seem to be a case for and not your .

Hmmmm . . . could it perhaps be, just perhaps of course, that the rest of us are being hyper-vigilant in our attempts to avoid potential collisions because it's sometimes such a mess out there. I know of many boaters who give way or change course when there are fast boats around because of bad experiences they've had with high-performance boats not giving way.

Now, that could happen with any size boat, of course (not giving way). My point is that some people are driving more defensively and this could contribute to fewer accidents.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Island Life

Hmmmm . . . could it perhaps be, just perhaps of course, that the rest of us are being hyper-vigilant in our attempts to avoid potential collisions because it's sometimes such a mess out there. I know of many boaters who give way or change course when there are fast boats around because of bad experiences they've had with high-performance boats not giving way.

Now, that could happen with any size boat, of course (not giving way). My point is that some people are driving more defensively and this could contribute to fewer accidents.

I agree I think that we are all being SUPER aware of our surroundings now. You have to be. I have had to alter my course for ALL kinds of boats. I have never had to alter my course for a boat going very fast. Not saying it does not happen it just has not happened to me. I think that people being aware that boating while fun is also needs to be taken seriously is helping. I for one am very happy that we have not had another collision and hope that we never have another.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Life

Hmmmm . . . could it perhaps be, just perhaps of course, that the rest of us are being hyper-vigilant in our attempts to avoid potential collisions because it's sometimes such a mess out there. I know of many boaters who give way or change course when there are fast boats around because of bad experiences they've had with high-performance boats not giving way.

Now, that could happen with any size boat, of course (not giving way). My point is that some people are driving more defensively and this could contribute to fewer accidents.

So your solution to the "mess" would be to institute speed limit and do away with defensive "driving"? I LIKE that other boaters operate in a "hyper-vigilant" manner, that's how anyone operating a boat should be; keeps us from hitting kayaks and such. I don't think a speed limit should stop us from being hyper-vigilant, boats are dangerous machine when operated carelessly.

Other than in a collision avoidance move, if a boater gives way when they are the stand on vessel, they are breaking the law. Perhaps it's these boaters who give way when they should stand on, solely due to the type of boats around them, that are the cause of the "mess".

If by "mess", you mean congestion, a speed limit will do nothing to relieve it.

[Island Life]

No, Dave, you know I don't mean to do away with defensive driving. Don't twist words into ridiculous conclusions to serve your own point.

What I'm saying is that sometimes we have to slow down and give way to high-performance boats because they are going to cross in front of our bow whether they have the right of way or not, simply because they have the horse-power to do it. That is what I mean by driving-defensively: collision avoidance. I've seen several boats slow down to a near stop to avoid colliding with a fast, give-way that had gunned it across their bow. If they hadn't done so, they would have passed within feet of the other boat (at best). And what if the faster boat had slowed down as it was crossing the slower boat's bow? Collision.


These boaters were not causing the problems, they were avoiding otherwise inevitable accidents - and, I believe, this is what we were discussing: why there are fewer accidents even though it sometimes like the Wild West out there.

[jeffk]

Boating is, by nature, significantly more complicated than driving a car because it involves operating on a largely unrestricted 360 degree surface. Even though the rules say you are primarily responsible for a smaller range where you are the give way vessel, it would be foolish not to be aware of all vessels anywhere around you. As pointed out, it would be foolish, and illegal, not to take action to avoid an anticipated collision. Defensive boating undoubtedly contributes to keeping the accident numbers down in the state.

That said, in the case where a vessel is operating as described, they have already violated the right-of-way regulations and also safe passage if they had come within a few feet of another boat. Since the operator is clearly a law breaking bonehead, what difference would the existence of a speed limit make? Would the "slower" boat have felt so secure that a speed limit would protect him that he would take no defensive action? I hope not. Would the bonehead realize that he was violating the speed limit although he is oblivious and unconcerned about the other laws he was breaking? I doubt it. Would the marine patrol, now armed with the mother of all laws, the speed limit, magically arrive to pull the scofflaw over. It would shock the heck out of me.

I have been boating on Winni for 12 years, longer than some, far less than others. I would note that the scenario described has indeed happened to me, multiple times every year, with one difference. I have never had it happen with a performance boat. All sorts of other boats, yes, even some unpowered ones. I don't deny that some performance boat operators might fall victim to the same lack of judgment that obviously infects so many boat operators on the lake, however it's not the type of boat that causes the problem, its the ignorance of the operator.

We have all the regulations we need to maintain safe boating. We need to continue to educate boaters, try to instill a sense of responsibility and boating courtesy, and enforce the laws we have. I'm not saying it's an easy or quick fix but in the long run it's the only thing that will really make a difference.

[Woodsy]

Regardless of who is the stand on boat or the give way boat, the captains of both boats are ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for the safety of thier boat and are REQUIRED to do everything possible to avoid a collison. This means that on occasion, the stand on boat will need to give way. When in doubt of the other boats intentions, assess the situation, and if neccesary slow down or stop.

As far as some of the arguments presented by the pro-speed limit folks, the reality is we have more boats using the lake than ever, yet our accident rate is down. There have been no fatalities since 2002 as the result of a collision between boats. We can argue if its because of boater education or just better vigilance, but the fact remains... more boats, less accidents!

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I don't think a speed limit should stop us from being hyper-vigilant, boats are dangerous machine when operated carelessly. I LIKE that other boaters operate in a "hyper-vigilant" manner, that's how anyone operating a boat should be; keeps us from hitting kayaks and such.

1) Psychologists say hyper-vigilance is exhausting: add sun, waves, wakes, alcohol, and inadequate hydration, and you have a recipe for tragedy.

2) Powerboating, at least, shouldn't be physically draining. Describing your own boat as "twitchy" at 50 mph, I'd sure hope the operator—and any boaters nearby—would be hydrated, sober, and attentive to those on the edge of control.

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

Amazing, how did that happen ? I mean with no speed limits and all them dangerous boats out there creating all that anarchy, I'd have thought we'd have dozens of collisons each and every year.

1) The boating public has no access here to Marine Patrol report Boating Accidents 2002-2006.

Opponents credit education with the sudden accident downturn; however, on-line testing has been discontinued by the NHMP, citing their own poor administration of the test.

We see only what NHRBA opponents want us to see. (As previously cited, NHRBA has that report in hand).

2) IMHO, any reduction in accidents can be credited to Mother Nature:

For 2006, more rained-out weekends than I can ever remember.
For 2005, Mee'n'Mac opines fewer Winni boaters than in 2004. Or here.
For 2004, Fish & Game reported a "rainy and cool" summer.
For 2003, The state experienced a "rainy" summer.
For 2002, Our wakeup call. And dry summer. An extremely dry summer.
For 2001, FLL opined that attitude-change WILL take place:

365 days after FLL's post, letters appeared in print saying a fatality was inevitable—IF the Marine Patrol continues to allow lake anarchy. Two subsequent letters agreed—written even while unaware that a 4½-ton boat had crushed a Winnipesaukee retiree on his "small" 22-foot boat. It was not a good weekend.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...As far as some of the arguments presented by the pro-speed limit folks, the reality is we have more boats using the lake than ever..."

Citation needed. (Citations always needed at Woodsypedia.)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...We can argue if its because of boater education or just better vigilance..."

The best vigilance has been by NH on their own on-line Boater Education. Even though initiated and authorized by NH, they discounted their real value last year.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

...more boats, less accidents...

Woodsypedia again: citation needed.

If fewer accidents have resulted, inclement weather is a greater factor in fewer boats on the lake.

Higher gas prices would produce fewer miles traveled per boat.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Does it make sense to hash all this over again? Too bad there isn't a short FAQ or primer to help out the newbies..."

Primer for 2002:

Angry boater: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44802
Blame MP: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44788
Blind MPs: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44792
Get serious: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44838
Out of Control: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44854

Phew!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Psychologists say hyper-vigilance is exhausting: add sun, waves, wakes, alcohol, and inadequate hydration, and you have a recipe for tragedy.

2) Powerboating, at least, shouldn't be physically draining. When you describe your own boat as "twitchy" at 50 mph, I'd sure hope the operator—and any boaters nearby—would be hydrated, sober, and attentive to those on the edge of control.

Your ability to correlate the mental illnesses of war veterans with operating a boat on Winnipesaukee is a bigger stretch than inferring "twitchy" means "on the edge of control".

Quoting sources from a site called "Dementia.com" explains it perfectly though...

[jrc]

APS

Reading the tragic story of that night as it unfolds is a good reminder of what the number one problem was and still is, booze.

[Cow Man]

Is there anyone who would seriously argue that passing a 45 MPH speed limit makes it OK to go that fast in the fog on a fourth of July weekend on Meredith bay?
Safe operation of a boat has nothing to do with lake wide speed limits and everything to do with boater education and common courtesy. A capable boat and skipper are perfectly able to navigate the broads safely at 90 MPH on a typical weekday with light traffic.
On the other hand, a poorly designed, overpowered boat in the hands of an inexperienced, incapable operator has no business leaving the dock.
Noise is not a function of speed; there are laws on the books regarding acceptable noise levels. Existing laws should be enforced and enforceable.
Passing speed limit legislation may make some feel good, but would be difficult to enforce. Furthermore, most boat’s speedometers and even gps units don’t accurately measure speed over water. Many of the classic wooden boats from years past we romanticize are incapable of obeying the current definition of “headway speed,” and maintaining steering control. Speed limits are for automobiles not boats.
What is “safe” is best left to the judgment of a capable captain. For the record, I don’t own a go fast boat and like the peace and quiet of island living, but I respect that others who enjoy the adrenalin rush of a fast boat have a right to the lake as well. If they are courteous, safe and sober operators, more power to them.

[John A. Birdsall]

While I am in favor of a speed limit, I am more in favor of people abiding by the existing laws. It has been proven that in the most part the faster a boat goes the smaller the wake, but that also depends on the hull of a boat.

I think Kayakers, canoeist have their place and their rights, But one thing I did not see on here and it is their responsibility. They are low in the water and sometimes in different water conditions are hard to see. I think they need to have some type of flag pole (fishing pole) with a colored triangled flag. or something like a divers flag. Attached to the kayak or canoe. Can't stay 150' away if I cannot see them.

Speed limit in the harbors/bays near islands I think is important, but not in the middle of the broads.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

While I am in favor of a speed limit, I am more infavor of people abiding by the exsisting laws. It has been proven that in the most part the faster a boat goes the smaller the wake, but that also depends on the hull of a boat.

And the faster the boat goes, the less time the operator has to avoid hitting anything in its path.

I think Kayakers, canoeist haave their place and their rights, But one thing I did not see on here and it is their responsibilty. They are low in the water and sometimes in different water conditions are hard to see. I think they need to have some type of flag pole (fishing pole) with a colored triangled flag. or something like a divers flag. Attached to the kayak or canoe. Can't stay 150' away if I cannot see them.

From a long distance, the most visible part of a paddler is the moving, reflective paddle. I can almost always spot another kayaker when they are still a mile or more away.

My sea kayak is only 23 inches wide. A flag on most sea kayaks would make them very unstable, especially on windy days. And a flag would make doing a recovery roll impossible.

This guy’s kayak was bright yellow, with a red and yellow sail, but his kayak still go cut in half by a speedboat.

And you guys claim that my fear of being run over by a high speed powerboat is irrational.

ADDED: This is the letter, that goes with the above photo (It was in AFLOAT Magazine:

Keep a proper lookout:
I was recently sailing my kayak near Speers Point on Lake Macquarie when it was cut in two by a bowrider speedboat.
Just before the collision, I saw the faces of kids in the bow of the boat as it veered towards me but I could not see the skipper. With less than a second to spare, I yelled “Hey!” and jumped clear to save my life.
Apparently the skipper had not seen the bright yellow kayak or the yellow and red sail standing two metres above the water. Maybe his view was obscured by the five kids in the bow. He was good enough to help me salvage the pieces of kayak and equipment and take me home. If I had not been quick to jump, it would have been pieces of me that had to be salvaged.
The rule about power giving way to sail is no good to you if you are dead. Never assume another skipper has seen you. In a busy waterway, constant traffic scanning is required and in a speed boat, scan wider and further. In a collision, the boat with the least weight and speed suffers most.
The main message is keep a proper lookout! See and be seen.

G.J. Robinson, Toronto.

[overlook]

I would like to read the article that you posted the picture from. Could you please post the link.
Thank You

[codeman671]

Yes, please post the link to the article. I find it hard to believe that a high speed boat hitting that kayak would have done such small damage. I doubt highly that anyone was in that kayak when it got hit. Something seems fishy...

[SteveA]

It's a little dated... and a big file but check out Chapter 4 Boating accidents stats. Biggest cause... human error, careless operation and drunk boaters.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/mari...pdf/entire.pdf

Sadly, no laws passed will solve the biggest problem(s). Captain Boanhead and Captain Tipsy.

I have to come down on the side of more enforcement and stiifer fines as opposed to more rules. Maybe we need to make it VERY expensive to get out on the lake if you aren't willing to do so safely within the rules that already exist.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And the faster the boat goes, the less time the operator has to avoid hitting anything in its path.



From a long distance, the most visible part of a paddler is the moving, reflective paddle. I can almost always spot another kayaker when they are still a mile or more away.

My sea kayak is only 23 inches wide. A flag on most sea kayaks would make them very unstable, especially on windy days. And a flag would make doing a recovery roll impossible.

This guy’s kayak was bright yellow, with a red and yellow sail, but his kayak still go cut in half by a speedboat.

And you guys claim that my fear of being run over by a high speed powerboat is irrational.

ADDED: This is the letter, that goes with the above photo (It was in AFLOAT Magazine:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this take place in Australia??? Last time I checked that was at least a few hour drive from Winnipesaukee... Can you find anything closer?

Lets check out a few quotes on www.kayakforum.com about safety:

"I just saw on the evening news here in Maine that a kayaker had his kayak cut in half in a collison with a powerboat.

Information gleaned from the TV report:
The incident occurred on Long Lake.
It was 11:30 at night.
The kayaker displayed a warning light and shouted loudly enough to wake people on shore.
When the collision seemed imminent he capsized and wet exited.
The kayaker was unhurt.
The power boat, according to wardens, was operating legally.
There seemed to be some issue in the powerboater reporting the incident promptly.
The powerboater was fined $500. "

Please note that this took place at 11:30pm !!! Do you think that the kayaker was acting dangerously being out at 11:30PM??

Here are a few opinions of the above incident by kayakers:

"Many paddlers seem intent on ignoring all of this and using whatever lights they have or like - including strobes - which are illegal except as emergency signals."

"If he had time for all that - couldn't he have just paddled clear? A stoke or two should be sufficient to get out of the direct path. Waving a light and shouting wastes valuable time in a situation like this. Stupid thinking IMO (same goes for waving paddles, blowing horns/whistles, etc. - unless the paddler is disabled somehow).

I'm not saying all collisions are avoidable - but in this case - there were two vessels involved. One unaware of any danger - the other failed to maneuver knowing a collision was imminent. By my understanding of ANY rules the paddler was at fault. "

A few more quotes from the above site, from kayakers about kayakers:

"Lots of casual kayakers are in la-la land
It's true. SOTs litter the waters surface in summer. They're rentals...then there's the EcoChallenge wannabes who charge about like they're hounding your rear on the freeway. Do they understand what the Navigation Rules are? Do they even recognize what those shapes are sailing/motoring at them as they paddle into the channel in front of those shapes? Many boaters have stories of such near-misses. Is it any wonder that boaters have a certain opinion of kayakers? "

"The above thread got me thinking about what appears to be a general attitude among sea kayakers toward power boaters. Past posts have made reference to six pack guzzling idiots endangering themselves and others. I think it's human nature perhaps to view our particular activity as superior and more pure than the other guys, but I just wanted to remind my fellow paddlers that MANY a sea kayakers life has been saved by a powerboater. Most often we don't hear about this, but I assure you it happens! Sure there are poor boaters, but it seems that kayakers account for a good percentage of mishaps where I live. I think the truth is that the majority of power boaters are pretty good. They have expensive vessels that they care about, insurance, and are more heavily scrutinized than kayakers. So in the spirit of cooperation I'd encourage paddlers to be friendly and courteous to all boaters. I think it goes a long way. Happy and safe paddling! "

"I'm not able to comment on statitistics but after 30 years on the water I can say that almost every time out I'm scared by what I see. First is the large number of kayakers who seem to feel that a PFD on the back deck will save them. I challenge any of these people to try and put on a PFD in a warm pool, never mind in cold water after a capsize. Second is the large amount of "luggage" I see on both front and rear decks. This raises the centre of gravity, contributing to instability, it can be a factor in capsizing in rough water and will certainly impede a safe re-entry. Third is what I consider ill advised clothing - dressing for the air temperature seems to be the norm instead of dressing for the water temperature. I could go on but I think you get the picture. I don't want to see unnnecessary legislation and would encourage all experienced paddlers to give advice on these matters, even when it's not been asked for. It could just save a life. Sorry to be so morbid at this time of year. Have a happy and safe Christmas and New Year. "

I can go on pasting for a while but I think you get the drift. Safety is an issue in all types of boating, I would not necessarily claim that kayakers are the opitimy of safety. There are many more fatal accidents each year involving paddlers than there are powerboaters. Most seem to be the error of the paddler.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This guy’s kayak was bright yellow, with a red and yellow sail, but his kayak still go cut in half by a speedboat.

And you guys claim that my fear of being run over by a high speed powerboat is irrational.

ADDED: This is the letter, that goes with the above photo (It was in AFLOAT Magazine:

Originally Posted by G.J. Robinson, Toronto

Keep a proper lookout:
I was recently sailing my kayak near Speers Point on Lake Macquarie when it was cut in two by a bowrider speedboat.

The main message is keep a proper lookout! See and be seen.

Some interesting info about Lake Macquarie…

http://members.aol.com/lakemach2otaxi/index.html


Also, interestingly, the people of Lake Macquarie seem to have more pressing concerns than aqua speed limits, as “residents are invited to learn more about Landcare projects at an Open Day at Kahibah on Sunday 25 February.”

Then, again, perhaps Australians view matters differently than you.

Did you find the land and people much different from life in Littleton, NH?

http://www.lakemac.com.au/news/news_...s.asp?key=2004


For those who are curious, some info on Speers Point on Lake Macquarie…

http://www.answers.com/topic/speers-...ew-south-wales

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this take place in Australia??? Last time I checked that was at least a few hour drive from Winnipesaukee... Can you find anything closer?

So this doesn’t count, just because it didn’t happen on Winni?

My point is that powerboats have indeed hit kayaks before . . . so we have valid reasons to be concerned for our safety on lakes that allow powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds, where many powerboats admit that they can’t often see kayaks very well.

Please note that this took place at 11:30pm !!! Do you think that the kayaker was acting dangerously being out at 11:30PM??

What I read was that the kayak had a warning light . . . which apparently met Maine’s regulations, since it was the powerboat that was cited for “operating illegally”, and not the paddler.

As far as being able to paddle a few strokes to avoid the collision . . . the top speed of paddling a kayak is about 6MPH, which is only 8.8 feet per second. In my case, at my top speed, it takes me nearly 2 seconds to just paddle the length of my kayak. So unless the guy had more than a few seconds warning, he could not have paddled out of the way of the oncoming boat.

There are many more fatal accidents each year involving paddlers than there are powerboaters.

This is completely untrue: Most fatal boating accidents involve powerboats (85% in 2005) – not paddlers.
According to the United States Coast Guard’s 2005 Boating Statistics:
In 2005 there were 78 fatalities among paddlers (49 canoes and 29 kayaks), And there were 501 fatalities among powerboaters (54 in Cabin Motorboats, 10 in Houseboats, 1 in a Jet Boat, 351 in Open Motorboats, 65 on Personal Watercraft, 20 in Pontoon Boats).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And the faster the boat goes, the less time the operator has to avoid hitting anything in its path.

True enough but how much time is needed ? If you can be seen "far away" (see below) why limit speed to a low number ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

From a long distance, the most visible part of a paddler is the moving, reflective paddle. I can almost always spot another kayaker when they are still a mile or more away.

I have no problems seeing kayakers and canoeists "far away" as well. So if you, sitting low, can see the kayaker why are you so worried that the boater, no doubt sitting higher, can not ? Do you think you need a mile to avoid a run-over at 45 mph ? How much sighting distance do you calculate is needed for a boat to safely run 45 and not run you over ? for 65 ? for 85 ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My sea kayak is only 23 inches wide. A flag on most sea kayaks would make them very unstable, especially on windy days. And a flag would make doing a recovery roll impossible.

Yes and I don't think it (the flag) is needed. The problem is not that you can't be seen, it whether the person will be looking. You can reduce people's speed but that won't make them look. At some point (speed limit) you're restricting normal people going about what is a safe activity because some small percentage of the population are boneheads. This is why people are getting so upset. The onus of making "you" feel safe from the bonehead boaters is being laid on the backs of the performance boaters. You, rightly, don't like it when the same is tried on you.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This guy’s kayak was bright yellow, with a red and yellow sail, but his kayak still go cut in half by a speedboat.
And you guys claim that my fear of being run over by a high speed powerboat is irrational.

The question is whether the fear level can be justified by the risk. Bad things are always going to happen when people and machinery are combined. Let's say that a 45 mph limit is enacted. Do you think that no runovers will ever occur thenceforth ? I wouldn't think so. So when one does occur will "you" say that you're afraid and the speed limit must be reduced even more ? How low an accident rate is needed for you not to be afraid and why should other people be restricted to satisfy your fears ? And when you're satisfied, what do we do with the person who's still afraid ? There will never be no boating accidents so long as human beings are at the helm. At some point you need to accept that there's some level of risk in what you're doing. This is where the stats come in. You're at more risk now from the bonehead boater than the fast boater. Slow the faster boater down and your risk level isn't going to change in any practical manner.

ps - Just how fast was that bowrider speedboat going with it's 5 kids in the bow ? Over 45 mph ?


FWIW : Can anyone tell me what doesn't qualify as a speedboat these days ? Between the above and the Crownline cruiser speedboat I'm left wondering.

[Cal]

And you think speeding boats are a problem

[DRH]

Hey Cal, is that Rattlesnake Island on the right side of the photo?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Limiting the size of great whites!!!!

[KonaChick]

Ok...everyone gives good arguments for and against speed limits and I enjoy reading them....they help to educate for the most part. We're at the point now where people need to make up their own minds and I'm amost at that point! I know you're all so excited for me! Here's a question for you all. Why do you have speed limits on the roads then? Don't they cut down on the number of fatalities and accidents? Wouldn't a speed limit on a body of water do the same thing? I know there are no stats to prove there is a problem with speed accidents either...I'm just curious to what people's thoughts on this are.

[Dave R]

We do have speed limits on the water: 6 MPH, where necessary, and for good reason. It's not unlike driving in-town and I think the need is obvious. Out on the highway, speed limits are mostly set to keep the speed differential down. With mere inches between vehicles, it's a good idea to keep the speed differential in check. This is why we have lower limits on the highway as well.

With at least 150 feet, by law, between boats exceeding 6 MPH, the speed differential is as relevant as the speed differential between your car on route 93 and a tree 150 feet from your car on the side of the highway. Do you ever feel compelled to slow to 45 solely because of trees near the highway?

Some, including me, would argue that some highway speed limits are set for revenue enhancement. I think the heavily patrolled 55 MPH zones on 93 by Manchester, Concord and Salem are perfect examples of this.

[SteveA]

If this thread has gotten a little too stressfull for you... and you could use some help..

Click Here

http://www.bouldertherapist.com/html...achine%201.mp3



Just a little humor... all nasty replies ignored..

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

With at least 150 feet, by law, between boats exceeding 6 MPH, the speed differential is as relevant as the speed differential between your car on route 93 and a tree 150 feet from your car on the side of the highway. Do you ever feel compelled to slow to 45 solely because of trees near the highway?

But there are lanes on highways, and the trees don’t move out onto the highway. Here’s an analogy:

Picture a huge open parking lot, were there’s nothing but acres of pavement. Then add a couple hundred cars and tell the drivers that they can drive just as fast as they want - as long as they stay 150 feet from the edge of the parking lot and from the other vehicles - at those times they must slow down to 6 mph. Oh, yeah – none of the cars have regular brakes (only their parking brake works). Now add 30 or 40 bicyclists – who are given the same rules. How long do you think it will be before the first collision occurs?


ADDED 2/26 at 11:18 PM: I'm being moderated to the point that I can't even post anymore (I posted my last reply this morning, and it still hasn't appeared). I can no longer even defend myself or respond to any questions that are directed to me, so debating is now totally impossible. Apparently only the anti-speed limit view is now being permitted on this forum - so I hope you guys have a nice one-sided discussion here.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Here's a question for you all. Why do you have speed limits on the roads then? Don't they cut down on the number of fatalities and accidents? Wouldn't a speed limit on a body of water do the same thing?

Let's talk about speed limits on land for a minute. What purpose do you think they might serve ? I can name 2 up front. First they're there to prevent "you" from hitting "me" due to "your" excessive speed. Secondly they're there to prevent the driver from going too fast for the road and hurting themselves. Continuing on the latter point, it's not too hard to imagine a blind corner (or like) where, absent some signage, even an attentive driver could be going to fast to make the corner. For the most part, when people are talking about speed limits for the lake, this isn't the situation they're concerned about. Moreover, IMO, it's not the Govt's job to keep me safe from myself. If it want's to advise what to do then advise ... but don't restrict.

The first reason is (purportedly) why people are advocating for a speed limit. Back on land you have intersections and corners and hills and obstructions that limit a persons ability to see what lies ahead (and act accordingly). This reason plays a part in why the around town speed limits are lower than what we have on the highways. Coming back to the water there are parts of the lake that are comparable to being "around town" (think coming around L. Bear, btw Long I, near FL10) and other parts that are more "highway like" (think Broads). The 45 mph limit might be appropriate for the former but isn't, IMO, for the latter. What would you think if RT93 imposed a 45 mph, in all places at all times, just because a local road was connected to it* ? Or because sometimes it backed up enough due to traffic congestion that 45 mph made sense at those times ? In the latter case existing road speed laws holds that the driver is supposed to exercise control an,d use speeds which are reasonable and prudent for the conditions. You can be stopped and cited for doing 50 mph on a road posted for 55 mph if the conditions are such that 50 is unreasonable. The problem I have with the proposed 45 mph limit is that it seeks to impose a "worst case" limit in all places and at all times that's overly restrictive. I understand Evenstar's concerns but I think she's safe at speeds far above the proposed 45 mph limit. This, and not pure luck and probability, is why boats, canoes and kayaks aren't being runover every weekend. I could go on but this is long enough for one post.

To answer your last question directly, we're already at the point where boat-boat collisions due to speed alone are essentially a random number in any given year. Pass a law and I don't see how it'll make any difference in the accident rate. The few boneheads who don't use good judgement today aren't going to be deterred by a speed limit. The drunks aren't likely to care much either.


*In fact this isn't that far from the truth. The present 55/65 mph laws are a compromise from the days when 55 mph was the rule. Because so many people were driving above 55 mph and federal highway funds were being threathened, the western states forced a compromise that left 55 as the rule where population density was above a certain number. 65 became the rule where population was scarce enough (like out west). This was just a political ploy, much as the 55 limit became, having no grounding in any science or engineering. And we here in the NE are still stuck with it. Out west you see limits that are the 70 mph (and higher ) that was the law when I was younger (and had cars not as good as those today).

[Silver Duck]

Mee-n-Mac

If I correctly understand what you posted, it makes a lot of sense. I fully agree that there are, indeed, times and places where 45 mph (or, even slower) makes sense, and times and places where it's an unreasonably restrictive limit.

But, would the boating community be able to reach a concensus about this to offer as a guide to the legislature? (As little as I like it, for reasons stated many times in previous postings, I'm pretty sure that some kind of speed limit is going to pass this time.)

Let's try a few questions, and see whether we can come up with something we could all live with.

First, I've heard very little complaining at the idea of a night time speed limit. Is there some agreement amongst us that this wouldn't be a bad idea? If so, are we happy at the proposed 25 mph?

Second, would most of us be reasonably content with some areas of the lake having a 45 mph (or some other figure) limit and some areas having a higher (or no) speed limit.

Third, if so, what areas should be restricted speed areas, and which don't really require restrictions?

Silver Duck

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So this doesn’t count, just because it didn’t happen on Winni?

Were you there? I wasn't. Unless you have an official report of the actualy facts of the incident I would not make such hasty judgement of the details. Maybe in Australia they discriminate against foreigners in kayakers the way certain groups on Winni discriminate against powerboaters or GFBL's.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

[My point is that powerboats have indeed hit kayaks before . . . so we have valid reasons to be concerned for our safety on lakes that allow powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds, where many powerboats admit that they can’t often see kayaks very well.

And according to the kayakers forum, kayakers have wandered into shipping lanes and places they really do not belong putting themselves and others at unnecessary risk. Kayakers can be reckless too, and put themselves in harm's way all to often.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I read was that the kayak had a warning light . . . which apparently met Maine’s regulations, since it was the powerboat that was cited for “operating illegally”, and not the paddler.

Actually if you reread what was quoted in my post the warden involved stated that the powerboater was acting LEGALLY, not illegally. I have not had a chance to dig for the actual incident report but if you have please post a link. Being that the boater was only fined $500 and the main complaint seemed to be their lack of a hasty reporting of the incident it does not seem to me that they found too much fault with the boater.

Lets reread my post again for something else, a quote from a kayaker from the kayaker's forum:

"Many paddlers seem intent on ignoring all of this and using whatever lights they have or like - including strobes - which are illegal except as emergency signals."

Nothing in the post that I read mentioned anything about the light used being legal for navigation use in the state of Maine. It could have been a penlight for all we know...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is completely untrue: Most fatal boating accidents involve powerboats (85% in 2005) – not paddlers.

My comment was tailored towards the findings in NH for 2006. All of the fatalities reported in the 2006 NHMP report were from drownings from paddlers, swimmers off boats, and the unfortunate rescue sinking on the CT River. None were from fatal reckless boating accidents. I am sure if I take the time (of course I am sure someone else will or has) to go back over past NH reports each and every year you will find more fatalities tied to paddlers, swimming accidents off anchored boats and capsizes than you will from the reckless boating accidents which you are so worried about.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Mee-n-Mac

If I correctly understand what you posted, it makes a lot of sense. I fully agree that there are, indeed, times and places where 45 mph (or, even slower) makes sense, and times and places where it's an unreasonably restrictive limit.

But, would the boating community be able to reach a concensus about this to offer as a guide to the legislature? (As little as I like it, for reasons stated many times in previous postings, I'm pretty sure that some kind of speed limit is going to pass this time.)

Let's try a few questions, and see whether we can come up with something we could all live with.

First, I've heard very little complaining at the idea of a night time speed limit. Is there some agreement amongst us that this wouldn't be a bad idea? If so, are we happy at the proposed 25 mph?

Second, would most of us be reasonably content with some areas of the lake having a 45 mph (or some other figure) limit and some areas having a higher (or no) speed limit.

Third, if so, what areas should be restricted speed areas, and which don't really require restrictions?

Silver Duck

I think a lot of people tried the "common ground" approach last year and unfortunately it did not go anywhere. I personally have no issue with 25mph at night and have stated so before. This seems to be a non-issue. Many have suggested setting speed limit zones in different areas makes sense although I do not see the proponents of the bill wanting to settle or negotiate whereas many of us against it as written would.

I think that some of the smaller bodies of water should have speed limits. I personally think that 70-80mph on Ossipee or Lovell Lake for instance is a bit much, but it is certainly fine on many parts of Winni. Maybe a group should sit down with a legislator and try to draw up a new, alternative bill that is much less of an "all or nothing" approach to give the lawmakers something else to consider instead of approving or denying what is at hand. If this is already being attempted I would love to get involved.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But there are lanes on highways, and the trees don’t move out onto the highway. Here’s an analogy:

Picture a huge open parking lot, were there’s nothing but acres of pavement. Then add a couple hundred cars and tell the drivers that they can drive just as fast as they want - as long as they stay 150 feet from the edge of the parking lot and from the other vehicles - at those times they must slow down to 6 mph. Oh, yeah – none of the cars have regular brakes (only their parking brake works). Now add 30 or 40 bicyclists – who are given the same rules. How long do you think it will be before the first collision occurs?

You'll need to make a few changes to make the analogy work more like the real world: The human powered vehicles cannot exceed 7 MPH, The vehicle brakes improve with the square of the speed above 20 MPH, only the most expensive 5% of motorized vehicles can exceed 70 MPH, the parking lot is 72 square miles, and the parking lot will have to become bumpier with more traffic or wind.

Oh wait, that experiment has already taken place over the last 100+ years. Turns out that it works fine. High speeds collisions are quite rare. You are much more likely to be in a car collision on the way to the lake.

[codeman671]

National rules for all recreational vessels including kayaks set forth by the Coast Guard:


"Mandatory Accessories United States of America

In the United States boating regulations vary from state to state but on a national level the United States Coast Guard requires that:

All recreational boats must carry one wearable PFD for each person aboard. The USCG divides PFD’s into 3 categories: type I: off shore type II: Near shore type III: flotation aid
Your kayak must include a system to signal your presence such as flares, signal mirror or flashlight
All recreational vessels, including kayaks, are required to display navigational lights between sunset and sunrise and during other periods of reduced visibility like fog, rain or haze.
The USCG, working with affiliated local organizations, offers all small craft owners a free, annual Vessel Safety Check (VSC). An educational procedure, rather than an enforcement of the law, the VSC helps to increase the safety of everyone involved with small craft boating. "

A simple warning light displayed on the kayak incident in Maine may not have been enough to meet Coast Guard regulations, the kayaker may have been at fault more than Evenstar thinks.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

A simple warning light displayed on the kayak incident in Maine may not have been enough to meet Coast Guard regulations, the kayaker may have been at fault more than Evenstar thinks.

This is taken directly from Maine Boating Laws:
"(5) Watercraft Manually Propelled: All other watercraft, not propelled by machinery, such as rowboats, canoes and rafts, and which are only operated by hand power, rowed, paddled or navigated by the current shall have ready at hand a lantern or flashlight showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision."

The powerboat hit the kayak and the kayak had the required warnng light, and the powerboat was fined - yet you're still trying to place the blame on the paddler - give it a rest.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

And you think speeding boats are a problem

For those dismissing small boaters' "FEAR", this is a real photograph.

And Winnipesaukee's speedsters are expressing no empathy with this guy?

Problem!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Let's try a few questions, and see whether we can come up with something we could all live with.

First, I've heard very little complaining at the idea of a night time speed limit. Is there some agreement amongst us that this wouldn't be a bad idea? If so, are we happy at the proposed 25 mph?

Second, would most of us be reasonably content with some areas of the lake having a 45 mph (or some other figure) limit and some areas having a higher (or no) speed limit.

Third, if so, what areas should be restricted speed areas, and which don't really require restrictions?

Silver Duck

1) 25 at night bothers me just a bit, I think 30 - 35 would be more appropriate. Here's why: Back when the whole HB-162 question came up I sat down and tried to figure out what would be reasonable speed limits. I did my own analysis and the end results back up what my 30 years of boating told me. Figuring out what's appropriate for night-time, vs day-time, is a bit more uncertain. The big problem (for boat-boat collisions) is not that an aware skipper won't see the other guy but that it's much harder to judge distances at night. At what distance will a competent, but not superhuman, skipper figure out that he's "danger close" and take corrective action ? How effective will this action be ? Somewhere on some PC I have the numbers but the end result is that for a simple encounter btw 2 boats I'd be worried over 45 mph. So I back off 10 - 15 mph and arrive at what I think is a safe limit but not unecessarily restrictive. Now I find I'm always taking action waaay before the distance I set for above analysis but I'm a pretty cautious person, perhaps more so that what I'm count on in my above average skipper.

2) and 3) Again any place that doesn't have the sightlines to support "high speed" becomes a candidate for a speed limit. You could approach this as set zones (which I think I mentioned back in prior discussion) or do an extension of the NWS/150' rule (as has been suggested by another forum member). Slow to 45 mph when with 450' (a SWAG, not my real numbers) of shore or another boat.... or 60 within 600' or ... well you get the idea. Certainly a lot of the inter-island channels become speed zones by either method and the Broads remains limit free. Perhaps we could persuade Bizer to put out a chart with distance contours instead of depth contours to see what such a plan would look like.


FWIW : I think I recall Cal mentioning the concept of a speed limit on weekends and holidays vs one of the above concepts. Instead of dividing the cake up into pieces, it's more like timesharing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

1)
FWIW : I think I recall Cal mentioning the concept of a speed limit on weekends and holidays vs one of the above concepts. Instead of dividing the cake up into pieces, it's more like timesharing.

Yup , it's been done in areas of Chesapeake Bay that are like Weirs Beach on the weekends. They have Sat/Sun/Holiday NWZs , any other time(like monday thru friday) it's a ghost town with no speed limits and guess what? It works great

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Cal

Yup , it's been done in areas of Chesapeake Bay that are like Weirs Beach on the weekends. They have Sat/Sun/Holiday NWZs , any other time(like monday thru friday) it's a ghost town with no speed limits and guess what? It works great

Interesting concept.... with some merit I do believe..... The question is would the state consider it..... I think seeing both sides of the arguement that this would be a good way to make both parties happier....

[Rayhunt]

I dont think the speed limit proponents will compromize and have localized speed limits/ no wake zones..
They have a hidden agenda which is to get boats off the lake period.
Anyone familiar with Winnipesaukee knows the congestion is localized to certain areas at certain times. ie: weekends at the weirs etc.
Nope , no compromise

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

ADDED 2/26 at 11:18 PM: I'm being moderated to the point that I can't even post anymore (I posted my last reply this morning, and it still hasn't appeared). I can no longer even defend myself or respond to any questions that are directed to me, so debating is now totally impossible. Apparently only the anti-speed limit view is now being permitted on this forum - so I hope you guys have a nice one-sided discussion here.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Welcome to the real world.

Do you think that you are the only forum member whose post is reviewed before being posted?

Are you so self-consumed that you forget that the Webmaster has a REAL LIFE and being a Webmaster is not part of it? This website is a hobby or have you not ascertained that knowledge?

The reason for the length of posting delays is the Webmaster's REAL LIFE schedule. He does the best of his ability given his REAL LIFE schedule.

It would appear that you want the Webmaster to modify his REAL LIFE schedule to accommodate you and your lifestyle.

You could always post your thoughts and stress your lifestyle on another website. This is not the only website on the planet or in the Lakes Region. Since you have severe issues with the Webmaster, perhaps life would be less stressful for you if you were to promote your lifestyle on a different website, one that does not moderate any posts. Then, again, you would be subjected to more personal attacks, scrutiny and ridicule, of your posts.

Life is choices and challenges.

Cooks have a great saying, "If you can't take the heat; get out of the kitchen." They are not about to reduce the flame to cool the kitchen to your desire, which is to say, they are not willing to modify their lifestyle unnecessarily to accommodate your lifestyle.

Again, life is choices and challenges.

Here's a thought:

Put on a survival suit, get in your kayak, paddle with the waterfowl in the open water off the Corinthian Yacht Club in Wolfeboro for awhile, and release some of the stress before you have a stroke.

Check it out...
http://www.wcyc-nh.com/wcyc-nh_008/clubcampage.html

[Island Life]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Are you so self-consumed that you forget that the Webmaster has a REAL LIFE and being a Webmaster is not part of it? This website is a hobby or have you not ascertained that knowledge?

The reason for the length of posting delays is the Webmaster's REAL LIFE schedule. He does the best of his ability given his REAL LIFE schedule.

It would appear that you want the Webmaster to modify his REAL LIFE schedule to accommodate you and your lifestyle.

You could always post your thoughts and stress your lifestyle on another website. This is not the only website on the planet or in the Lakes Region. Since you have severe issues with the Webmaster, perhaps life would be less stressful for you if you were to promote your lifestyle on a different website, one that does not moderate any posts. Then, again, you would be subjected to more personal attacks, scrutiny and ridicule, of your posts.

GWC: Vicious and uncalled for.

What on earth are you talking about, her "lifestyle"? Does she live with barn animals? Did I miss something? She's an athlete, for godsake. She's out there getting exercise and taking care of her body and soul. I, for one, admire that as I sit here on my lazy backside.

You might not agree with her arguments, but the personal attack is over the top.

While the discussion might be one-sided, Evenstar, there are plenty of us out here that agree with you. We just choose not to engage in the same old arguments. Anyone else want to speak up on behalf of Evenstar?

[Rayhunt]

Personally i'm tired of this Kayak sympathy argument.
No statistics point to you being in any danger out there in your Kayak ! If your scared you have the choice to go elsewhere or stick to the shoreline like everyone else. Life is a risk.. When will we ban Mountain climbers from attempting Everest or K2
I see it as Darwinism if you want to paddle out in front of the weirs or around governors island on a saturday in July.
I don't see many island residents packing there weekend groceries in a kayak and heading out.
Its called common sense.

[KonaChick]

Just a friendly suggestion GWC...you might also want to do whatever it is you do to relase stress..before you have a stroke! Maybe Evenstar could teach you the fine points of kayaking..you might relax and enjoy it!

[Coastal Laker]

All this regurgitation of the s-a-m-e o-l-d s-t-u-f-f just makes me weary. It's getting hard to come up with reasons to stay on the lake.

I must confess that I prefer being 10 miles out to sea (in federal waters) far more than being on the lake. Peace and quiet, no arguing, no crowding, no 150 ft rule, no debating on who is more educated, who interprets statistics correctly, who is scared, who is not... nothing... just peace and quiet. Even the loud boats are quiet if you can understand that - since they come and go so fast you don't hear them.

[fatlazyless]

'Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination.'

What am I talking about? Drove by the Lakeport Landing Marina on Union Ave, Laconia yesterday, and was surprised to see that message on their big signboard. In the past, it has said 'Governor Craig Benson' and more recently it said 'Senator Robert Boyce.' Today, it says 'Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination.'

Lakeport is the only Winnipesaukee Formula dealer and Formula is the one brand that Lakeport carries.

Translation from New Hampshire-speak to American English-speak = 'Don't Worry - Be Happy!'

Hey, after Governor Craig Benson and Senator Robert Boyce it's terrific to see that Lakeport Landing is getting a new attitude adjustment and lightening up here. From Craig Benson to "Worry is a Misuse of Your Imagination." Get it? So, why are they saying this?

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is completely untrue: Most fatal boating accidents involve powerboats (85% in 2005) – not paddlers.
According to the United States Coast Guard’s 2005 Boating Statistics:
In 2005 there were 78 fatalities among paddlers (49 canoes and 29 kayaks), And there were 501 fatalities among powerboaters (54 in Cabin Motorboats, 10 in Houseboats, 1 in a Jet Boat, 351 in Open Motorboats, 65 on Personal Watercraft, 20 in Pontoon Boats).

I think that the point that he was trying to make was that more paddlers die from their own demise then from people hitting them. For example if a guy flips over and can not get back on his boat. There are with out a doubt more deaths from that then collisions.

Us coastguard regulations take precidence over state for lighting I believe. So if you look at the posted requirements above then you will see that Kayaks are required to have the same lighting that any other boat is based on size and tonage more then anything.

Don't give up over the moderation. As long as your post is worth while they seem to always post them. I am anti speed limit and also moderated.

[fatlazyless]

Lately, there's been talk of requiring kayaks, canoes, rowboats, and sailboats less than 12' to purchase a ten dollar annual decal as a way to fund the Fish & Game Dept, which is broke. Kayaks, canoes, rowboats and sailboats less than 12' are all quiet, human powered vehicles which do little to disturb the environment and many would agree they add a welcome human element to the over-horsepowered lake. It makes a lot more sense to apply a yearly sticker to the inflatable vinyl rafts, waterskis and boogie boards that get towed behind the motorboats because they increase the overall length and imprint of a motor boat. Essentially, a 20' motorboat becomes a 95' vessel when it is used to tow Junior or Missy at the end of a 75' tow line.

So, a Fish & Game sticker for kayaks should be a no-go, while a sticker on that inflatable tow-behind is the way-to-go!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...Lately, there's been talk of requiring kayaks, canoes, rowboats, and sailboats less than 12' to purchase a ten dollar annual decal..."

A sailboat that's less than 12' is a very inefficient design—as owners of the Alcort "Minifish" will tell you. Are there two "Minifish" in the whole state? Owners of the popular 14' "Sunfish" are presently paying a motorboat-equivalent in registration fees.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...It makes a lot more sense to apply a yearly sticker to the inflatable vinyl rafts, waterskis and boogie boards that get towed behind the motorboats because they increase the overall length and imprint of a motor boat. Essentially, a 20' motorboat becomes a 95' vessel..."

And increases its "acres-per-second" coefficient?

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...So, a Fish & Game sticker for kayaks should be a no-go, while a sticker on that inflatable tow-behind is the way-to-go...!

Watching for the poor family shlump who car-topped his canoe in the hope of enjoying a navigable U.S. waterway is a pitiful—even shameful—waste of the NHMP.

1) Canoes and kayaks are of microscopic environmental concern; indeed, operators of canoes and kayaks are often acutely aware of the environment.

2) Fish & Game would receive an immense windfall from your proposal.

3) Inflatable tow-behind toys, with the short non-recyclable lifespan of all vinyl products are of environmental concern. Even their shelf-life is short!

I agree 100% with your proposal. Who wouldn't?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, a Fish & Game sticker for kayaks should be a no-go, while a sticker on that inflatable tow-behind is the way-to-go!

Tax them all , then they get to collect even MORE money

[Island Life]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) Inflatable tow-behind toys, with the short non-recyclable lifespan of all vinyl products are of environmental concern. Even their shelf-life is short!

I agree, ApS. In addition to filling up the landfills and leaching toxins into the ground, I for one know that my gas mileage (which stinks to begin with) tanks when pulling a couple of kids on a double tube. I limit my poor deprived children to a few days of tubing over the course of the summer until they can pay the extra gas bill.

I'm not sure I agree we should be taxing inflatables through a registration fee, though. Seems to me the extra bill at the gas dock amounts to a user tax, but since the State gives us our gas taxes back at the end of the season , the "user tax" is going straight to the oil companies.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've brought this up many times: From the perspective of a kayaker, who has spent time out on both lakes in the middle of the summer - Squam, NH's 2nd largest lake, feels much safer than Wnnipesaukee. And the proof is in the number of paddlers out on Squam. If a speed limit has no effect, then why does Squam have so many more paddlers?

Umm, because a much bigger lake is right down the road and so that's where the boaters go

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

World Record runs are your average run over 500 meters. There are times of speeds WELL in excess of record speeds and then well below and the average is...... My run was a instantanious burst radared by a State Policeman in very similiar contitions to what you listed behind the Seabrook Power Plant

There's a river by Mt Hood east of Portland, OR, I think it's the Columbia river, where they do some serious windsurfing, the wind there is always high and I'd bet they get some good speeds recorded there as well. I've seen as many as 100 windsurfers out there and it's a pretty cool site.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

.....case-in-point - lake lice, or PWC's if you will. Cheap to buy, nothing to regulate their operation, lots of them out there!

I completely threw out your whole rant when I saw this comment. Obviously you don't like PWC, but no reason to resort to name calling and insulting them. They are regulated by the same laws that your boats are.

[EricP]

What exactly is Winnfabb?