Hb 162 News

Bear Lover · 11-29-2005, 06:48 PM

HB162 was passed by the RR&D committee with an 11 to 10 vote. It still needs to pass the House and Senate. The Governor is expect to sign if it gets that far. The RR&D committee was considered the toughest hurdle.

A statewide voter poll shows 66% in favor and 22% apposed to HB162.

Lakewinniboater · 11-29-2005, 07:08 PM

Yes it is going to the House..... the rest of the data stated.... more than a bit stretched.

Islander · 11-29-2005, 07:14 PM

Stretched where?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

Lakegeezer · 11-29-2005, 08:37 PM

The PAC solicited money, bought news coverage, and used fear to "educate" the voters. Advertising works. Money buys opinion. That doesn't make it right.

Mee-n-Mac · 11-29-2005, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Stretched where?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

This poll shows support for speed limits, not necessarily those per HB-162.

Islander · 11-29-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

This poll shows support for speed limits, not necessarily those per HB-162.

The poll question did everything but say "HB162". I doubt the people polled were thinking about some other New Hampshire boating speed bill.

I was not surprised that 83% of Democrats favor speed limits. But that 68% of Republicans favor speed limits is a shocker.

Mee-n-Mac · 11-30-2005, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

The poll question did everything but say "HB162". I doubt the people polled were thinking about some other New Hampshire boating speed bill.

I was not surprised that 83% of Democrats favor speed limits. But that 68% of Republicans favor speed limits is a shocker.

Not to go overboard on this but ... While the people who are either for or against HB-162 know what it is and the specifics, I doubt many in the general population know what HB-162 is. How many bills, by #, are you aware of ? My opinion is that the average guy in the street, who doesn't boat here on Winni (and probably doesn't even own a boat) may have heard about some speed limit thingee but didn't have enough interest to care one way or another. Had the poll mentioned HB-162 by name or 45/25 as the specific limits to be set then you could conclude that the voters supported HB-162. As asked, the poll indicates a desire for some (unspecified) limits.

ApS · 11-30-2005, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Not to go overboard on this ...

I'm steering clear of this issue — BUT!

Was this a good choice of words?

jrc · 11-30-2005, 09:52 AM

with the right questions, you can get people to favor banning anything.

http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

Cal · 11-30-2005, 10:33 AM

Isn't dihydrogen monoxide more commonly know as H2o or WATER

Skip · 11-30-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

with the right questions, you can get people to favor banning anything.

http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

Thanks JRC......I thought I had a good laugh when I read the title of the thread originator that this thread was based on "news" (we all know the vote cited was taken back in October)....but the site you have pointed us to shows the absolute absurdity of basing public policy on polling data!

Great site, I will be sure to point this out on many occasions to come!

Merry Christmas,

Skip

Woodsy · 11-30-2005, 11:03 AM

Yup... its water!! LOL! Pretty funny website.

Polling all depends on how you phrase the question.

I think the speed limit debate is getting very old and tiresome. This issue has just divided the lake, and no matter what way the legislature votes, there will be alot of unhappy people, that would otherwise get along with one another just fine.

Its not about safety or facts or statistics. HB-162 is about fear, plain and simple. Anybody who thinks otherwise should talk to Rep. Pilliod. I have a message left on my answering machine from Rep. Pilliod where he unequivocally states that HB-162 is not about safety, but is about fear. (I will try to get it converted to an .mp3 format so everyone can listen to it) If Don will let me, I will post it here, but if not, I totally understand his position.

Woodsy

webmaster · 11-30-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

I thought I had a good laugh when I read the title of the thread originator that this thread was based on "news"

To be fair, I added the word "news" to the thread title to avoid confusion with another recent thread with the same title. Blame me, not Bear Lover.

It was just an innocent use of the word since I thought that HB162 being passed by the RR&D committee was news. If it had failed it would have been news as well.

Skip · 11-30-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webmaster

To be fair, I added the word "news" to the thread title to avoid confusion with another recent thread with the same title. Blame me, not Bear Lover.

It was just an innocent use of the word since I thought that HB162 being passed by the RR&D committee was news. If it had failed it would have been news as well.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the clarification.

My point was that the event described took place six weeks ago and was discussed extensively on the internet, in the local print and radio/television media and through various letters to the editor. So when I saw it pop up again after it has become what can only fairly be described as "old news", I figured it was another attempt to troll the issue.

It was quite evident in the past discussions here (and elsewhere) that the two opposing camps on this issue are pretty firmly entrenched in their beliefs, and little swaying of either side was occuring...hence the escalation of the hyperbole seen here and elsewhere.

But as was pointed out by an earlier poster, this is really an obscure issue that is only being followed by a vocal minority in the State. I bet you would find that most people in New Hampshire would actually love to be in the position to have a desire to stake a claim in the debate (that is, having the means to boat on the Great Lake) and are looking slightly askew at those adults that do have the means but not the ability to work out a compromise that at least partially satisfies the reasonable wants and desires of both sides.

As I have said before, politics is the art of compromise. Regardless of claims to the contrary, there are still significant hurdles this bill must cross, including full passage in the House then Senate, followed by the Governor's signature. It is not unheard of for bills that have made it out of committee to be drastically altered or outright killed on the House or Senate floor, or even vetoed by the Governor.

It will be interesting to watch as this bill continues to take on a life of its own.....but there will not be any "real" news (since October) until the legislature takes it seat again early next year.

Merry Christmas,

Skip

Bear Lover · 11-30-2005, 05:29 PM

I didn't start this thread. At least I don't think I did. I posted a response to the question by Phantom in the other HB162 thread. I don't understand how my post started a new thread but it's probably just a computer glitch.

I hope the division this topic has caused will soon heal. The voters of NH may not understand the issue and they may have been led in one direction. However that's politics, it happens every day. And in the end it is the people of NH that own Lake Winnipesaukee.

JDeere · 11-30-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

The voters of NH may not understand the issue and they may have been led in one direction. However that's politics, it happens every day.

The voters of New Hampshire understand the issue just fine. Making a decision if 45 MPH is fast enough does not require anything but common sense IMHO.

fatlazyless · 11-30-2005, 06:38 PM

If HB 162 makes it all the way to Gov Lynch's desk for his signature, I am 75% certain that he will sign it into law. If Gov Benson were still the Governor, I'd be about 75% certain that Gov Benson would veto it. I can remember the Benson for Gov sign up on the big sign board at Lakeport Landing Marina. Yes, last Governor's election was a very close race. And, getting this law passed will not be easy.

pm203 · 11-30-2005, 09:26 PM

I was talking to a gentleman from Lake George.He informed me not to worry about the speed limit.At lake George,it is business as usual.Unless you are blatantly breaking the speed limit close to shore, you can cruise well above the posted limit. Not only is it very hard to enforce,most law enforcing officials dont see the validity of the law enough to make it a high enough priority.They would rather police more threatening situations that may arrise on the lake daily.

P.s. Is it going to be like the highway? if the speed limit is 65, most police officers will not bother you if you are doing 75 or less. What do you think?

fatlazyless · 12-01-2005, 01:22 AM

Out on Route 93, I've seen a bright yellow Corvette get stopped while going about 70mph. A 32' go-fast hull with a bright color graphic design is not hard to see. Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun.
Maybe, the Formula-Baja-Fountain-Donzi-Cigarette go-fasts will come out with a new Winnipesaukee-stealth-natural blend-low detection camoflage color and finish?

Orion · 12-01-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

a new Winnipesaukee-stealth-natural blend-low detection camoflage color and finish?

They'll get run over by the other go-fast boats that don't see them!

Dave R · 12-01-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pm203

I was talking to a gentleman from Lake George.He informed me not to worry about the speed limit.At lake George,it is business as usual.Unless you are blatantly breaking the speed limit close to shore, you can cruise well above the posted limit. Not only is it very hard to enforce,most law enforcing officials dont see the validity of the law enough to make it a high enough priority.They would rather police more threatening situations that may arrise on the lake daily.

P.s. Is it going to be like the highway? if the speed limit is 65, most police officers will not bother you if you are doing 75 or less. What do you think?

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the head of Marine Patrol said it won't be enforceable. It's just another law for folks who have no common sense and need a law to tell them what not to do. My boat barely exceeds 45MPH so this law really won't make a bit of difference in the way I operate but I still think it's silly.

Not that I would condone it but, If someone is ripping accross the water at a high rate of speed, what is the incentive to stop if the marine patrol boat can't keep up? It would be quite easy to argue in court that you were unaware there was anyone trying to stop you if you were finally caught. Either way, a speeding conviction is the worst that could happen (assuming you were just speeding and not doing anything reckless). The fine probably wouldn't cost much more than the gas it takes to go real fast anyway.

I think it would be amusing to get a bunch of boats and competent drivers together to make a video of boats constantly crossing eachother's paths with just over 150' spacing at just under 45 MPH and just over 150 feet from the end of the Weirs Beach docks, so that no laws are broken. Make it kind of like a motorcycle skills dispaly in a Shriner's parade, if you know what I mean. Submit that to the local news along with a video of a boat going 60 MPH across the broads with no other boats in the vicinity. That would glaringly point out the absurdity of a speed limit on the water.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 10:59 AM

I pretty much cruise at 45 most of the time anyway. If I am doing 50-55, I do not think it would much of a problem.I will save the high speed runs for the broads during the middle of the week.Common sense and a respect for your fellow boater is what I will strive for.

BroadHopper · 12-01-2005, 11:30 AM

Fatlazyless hit it on the nail. It is the reflective property of the surface. That is why the stealth fighter and bomber is designed the way it is. The bow of the boat has a lot less reflective property than the sides. So a boat is very stealthy head on, unless you have a flat windshield that is vertical with the horizon. Many Engineers from high tech companies have all the facts to throw out any radar convictions except for the obvious, like 25 mph over the speed limits.
Many of my law enforcements friends says, as long as you are under 10 mph over the speed limit and the conditions are reasonable and prudent, chances of being pulled over is very slim.

Woodsy · 12-01-2005, 11:42 AM

MP Director Barrett has said he will do what the legislature tells him to do. If we get a speed limit, there will be enforcement. I have no doubt about it. Will the tickets be beatable? In most cases, probablyin some cases not. I am guessing over time Winni will become like Lake George, in that for the most part, a ticket won't be issued unless your a complete bonehead. Will the speed enforcement change anything? Not really. Some, will still lack courtesy and education, still violate the 150' rule, and still generally not care at all. You cannot legislate courtesy and good judgement.

Woodsy

Woodsy · 12-01-2005, 11:53 AM

I have posted the transcript of the message left by Rep Pilliod below. For the record, I have the utmost respect for Rep. Pilliod. He left this message in response to an e-mail I sent him expressing my opposition to HB-162. If anyone wishes, I can post that e-mail here as well. I will try to get the message converted to an MP3 or WAV file over the weekend so you can hear it "from him" so to speak. It was pretty eye opening as to the "real" reasons behind HB-162.

"Hi Mr. Wood, This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "

(that is when the answering machine cut him off)

Reading the text, doesn't really give you a sense of the voice inflections, I will try to get it converted.

Form your own opinion as to what HB-162 is really about.

Woodsy

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Form your own opinion as to what HB-162 is really about.

We know what its really about. Its infortunate that a law has the possibility of passing for all the wrong reasons.

jrc · 12-01-2005, 12:27 PM

The motives of the HB162 supporters has always been very clear, and I don't want to beat that horse.

But if you read this article:
http://www.cabinet.com/headlines/200...1.24.05-2.html

You will see that auto speed limits are now a big revenue source. I'm sure 50-60 years ago the laws were enacted mainly for safety, and only the dangerous offenders were ticketed. As we all know now, there is almost no relationship between the dangerousness of the offense and the fine.

So I'm sure the legislators will eventually realize that there's money to be made in boat speeding fines. And so will the insurance companies. Just like with autos, insurance rates will increase with tickets and insurance companies will start giving safety grants so the MP can buy radar guns. The legislator may even link boat speeding tickets with your auto driving record, they already do for DUI/BUI.

Skip · 12-01-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

... Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun...

Sorry, the reflective finish of the target being tracked by the radio frequency pulse emitted by the police radar unit is not enhanced by the optical reflectivity of the tracked object. That is one of the many misconceptions of police radar that has been bantered about during this debate.

The amount of signal returned from the target is directly related to the material the object is made of (metal reflects more rf energy than plastic or fiberglas) and the relative amount of material the tracked object offers as a reflector to the signal (along with target range, interference, etc.)

Simply put, two identical fiberglass boats presenting an identical target aspect to the radar unit will return the same amount of signal, regardless of what colors they are painted. And a metal boat of the same dimensions and same aspect will return more signal than the fiberglass boat.

Also, it is up to the discretion of the Court having jurisdiction....but most Courts using the unreasonable speed standard will allow a driver up to and around 15 MPH over the posted limit before convicting. In short, regardless of the posted limit, the officer must show that the speed you were cited for was unreasonable given the prevailing overall conditions at the time of the stop.

However, if the speed limits enacted are referenced as "absolute" limits, such as in neighboring States and some roadways in New Hampshire, then all the officer needs to show for a conviction is any speed above that posted.

There is one particular thing that is constantly overlooked in the debate about police radar. The radar unit is only an extension of the officer's sense of sight, and a tool used to verify the officer's opinion that the offender was operating above a certain limit, or unreasonably. The officer has to be able to testify that given his/her experience and based on his visual observations of your operation, that the speed displayed on his radar unit correlated with the speed that he visually interpreted that you were going. Blind testimony based on a radar unit readout without a visual correlation to the offending operator will not result in a conviction. Simple as that. The radar is a tool, one of several, that the officer will testify to led him to believe it was you, not someone else, that the radar was tracking along with his sense of sight and sometimes hearing. Most experienced radar operators not only use the visual speed tracking component of the radar, but the audio doppler portion of the radar unit while visually observing the relative motion of the objects in the field of view to ascertain the correct target and speed.

It still continues to amaze me that police radar, in use now for almost half a century, is so misunderstood by the general motoring public. But the folks that sell you radar detectors, jammers and hubcap foilers are still laughing all the way to the bank!

As usual, if anyone would like additional information on the truthful way that radar does work, why the conviction rate for cited offenders is extremely high (despite claims to the contrary here) and how it can be used successfully and unsuccesfully on the water, please PM me off-line.

Merry Christmas,

Skip

fatlazyless · 12-01-2005, 03:19 PM

Three cheers for Rep Jim Pilliod of Belmont and his understanding of the 'fear factor' when sharing the lake w/ the go-fasts. As someone who likes to cruise all over the big lake in an old Starcraft aluminum 18'er than gets up on plane at about 18 mph, I am all too familiar with the Winnipesaukee fear factor. Sharing the waters with much larger, faster, heavier, and thundering go-fasts is no picnic. A 45mph day /25mph night speed limit that is linked to your automobile driving record is definately a good thing. Out on the waters, 45mph is hardly a slow speed. And, a big thankyou to Rep Jim Pilliod.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 03:51 PM

Rep Pilliod and 162 is a disgrace. Laws should be passed on fact,not unfounded fear from the minority. If anything should scare you in your smaller boat, it is the cabin cruisers throwing the 6 foot wake! Are you going to try and outlaw them next? I understand your right to feel safe, but targeting a relatively small group of boats is not the answer. Just like a go-fast cannot go fast all the time, maybe there are times that you should not go out in your 18 footer.

fatlazyless · 12-01-2005, 04:07 PM

Gee whiz...I like those 24 to 48' cruisers that cruise along at 12 - 24 mph with their displacement hulls and their large wakes. Makes for a little challenge while out boating and sailing on the big lake.

And don't forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat out on the big lake!

Woodsy · 12-01-2005, 04:35 PM

PM... Please dont' use harsh words to describe Rep. Pilliod. Although you disagree with him and HB-162, I don't think disgrace is the right word. He is a respected member of our legislature and should be treated as such. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. Treat them with respect even when you are angry or disagree with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Three cheers for Rep Jim Pilliod of Belmont and his understanding of the 'fear factor' when sharing the lake w/ the go-fasts. As someone who likes to cruise all over the big lake in an old Starcraft aluminum 18'er than gets up on plane at about 18 mph, I am all too familiar with the Winnipesaukee fear factor. Sharing the waters with much larger, faster, heavier, and thundering go-fasts is no picnic. A 45mph day /25mph night speed limit that is linked to your automobile driving record is definately a good thing. Out on the waters, 45mph is hardly a slow speed. And, a big thankyou to Rep Jim Pilliod.

FLL,

Your post really cuts to the heart of HB-162 and why it is such a divisive issue. I thought that Lake Winnipesaukee belonged to the citizens of NH, and as such was to be shared by ALL. It seems to me most HB-162 supporters do not want to share the lake with anything larger, faster or heavier than than thier particular boat.

Fear is not a basis for implementing law. It is in fact a very dangerous and slippery slope. Laws that limit an individuals personal freedoms must be very carefully considered. A law should never be crafted to restrict or limit an individuals personal freedom, just because a person, or in this case a group of people doesn't like them. A law that limits or restricts an individuals personal freedom needs to be supported by facts and statistics, not fear. What's happens next? People fear getting swamped by the wake of the big cruisers? Are they the next target of fear based legislation? Perhaps we should restrict the usage of canoes and kayaks because more people get hurt or drown in them than any other watercraft? I know it sounds absurd, but the facts & statistics support that position better than they support a speed limit.

The sad part is a speed limit will do little or nothing to alleviate fear or make the lake any safer.

1. It will not make boaters more courteous, however mandatory boater education will. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

2. It will not alleviate any of the weekend congestion, however, strategically placed NWZ's will ease it somewhat, especially in the Weirs area and perhaps the SW entrance between Bear Is and Meredith Neck.

3. It will not eliminate 150' rule violations, however mandatory boater education will cut them down somewhat. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

4. It does nothing to reduce BWI infractions.

5. It does nothing to reduce the noise level.

Rep. Pilliod mentions in the message that he was doing this because a marina owner (Merrill Faye) asked him to because he was losing boat rental business because of crowds and speed. I take an issue to this as Merrill is adding to the crowding by renting boats. Should everyone else get off the lake so he can make a buck or twenty renting boats? I also have an issue with Rusty and his rental boat story. However, I really take exception to the whole boat/PWC rental business in general.

How is it acceptable that ANYONE with a credit card, with absolutely NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE, can rent an 1800lb boat (average weight of an 18' boat) and be let loose to drive around on ANY lake (Not just Lake Winnipesaukee) with nothing more required than an easy 20 question checklist? Most reasonable people would NEVER consider renting a car to someone who had never driven one, just because they had a credit card and did a quick checklist. How is this acceptable with boats?

Rusty has told the story numerous times about his angry hotel guests after renting a boat (I assume from him that part of the story was never made clear) came back to the hotel and vociferously complained to him about the lake. Specifically telling him that it was his responsibility to inform them that the lake was crowded/busy and there were speeding boats. Quite frankly I agree with the angry guests! They had never rented a boat before (I believe Rusty came out with that tidbit on the Charlie St. Clair show). It certainly was the Rusty's/hotels (or whomever rented the boat) responsibility to inform the guests that Lake Winnipesaukee is in fact a very busy lake, especially on weekends. If these guests stayed down in Meredith, and lets assume they left from Meredith Marina (Not clear in the story) they would have run the virtual congestion gauntlet in the busiest part of the lake until they got past Weirs. I don't blame them for being angry, especially if they were not forewarned! I don't like that part of the lake on a busy weekend with my 26' boat.

There are lots of other ways to make the lake safer for all without imposing a speed limit.

Woodsy

BroadHopper · 12-01-2005, 04:35 PM

Well Fatlazyless, Rep. Pilliod is going to target those boats next. He had told a number of us, email, voice mail and otherwise, that those boats belong on the ocean. I guess you will have to take up another sport that will get your adrenalin going.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 05:09 PM

Woodsy,
Sorry for being slightly harsh on Rep.Pilliod. While he may be an asset to the local government, you cannot tell by the way and why he sponsered 162. While I admitt I dont know his track record on general issues, I cannot support nor trust an individual in his position that would generate a law that is not based on fact,but based on a small group that has used scare tactics to grow to their current size.Instead, I would expect someone in his position to look at the real facts,talk to the Marine Patrol and then draw his own non-biased conclusions as to whether a law is neccessary or not. Generating laws that take away any of our freedoms should be dealt with a little less on emotion and more on fact.

chase1 · 12-01-2005, 05:19 PM

It is often said that 45 is not slow when refering to HB162.

I agree that 45 is not slow for some boats but how can one say that any boat traveling over 45 is unsafe. There is no evidence of it...... just "fear".

I remember being afraid of going to school on the first day......I cried, and my mom made me go!

My first time merging onto the highway was no picnic....I currently drive 45,000 miles a year.

Boating in NH is a very safe activity and Statistics show that. Anyone afraid of boating on the lake must live a sheltered life. The USCG Boating Statistics report for 2004 shows that there were a total of 35 boating accidents within the entire state resulting in two fatalities. Even with an increase in boater registrations (sadly not the case for many states) boating accidents and fatalities have continued to fall from year to year which proves current programs are effective and accommodating growth.

All this energy over 35 accidents and two fatalities with no proof that the speed limit will make a difference. If anything, statistical data shows that there will be no measurable effect.

Yes, I can not argue the standard reply "one live is worth saving" but....What could we accomplish if we actually put the same effort and funding into a real problem.

Go boating in what ever you have and be happy you can.
Chase1

Bear Islander · 12-01-2005, 05:22 PM

Woodsy

I think fear is a good reason for a speed limit. There is the fear a camp director has in sending children out in small boats. Or the child that can't play in the water because their parents are afraid of the traffic and speed. Or the islander that can't get to the mainland on a weekend.

Fear of accident or death is a very valid reason to enact legislation. Especially when those fears are reasonable, as they are here.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-01-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

{snip}

The sad part is a speed limit will do little or nothing to alleviate fear or make the lake any safer.

1. It will not make boaters more courteous, however mandatory boater education will. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

2. It will not alleviate any of the weekend congestion, however, strategically placed NWZ's will ease it somewhat, especially in the Weirs area and perhaps the SW entrance between Bear Is and Meredith Neck.

3. It will not eliminate 150' rule violations, however mandatory boater education will cut them down somewhat. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

4. It does nothing to reduce BWI infractions.

5. It does nothing to reduce the noise level.

{snip}
Woodsy

I was going to say pretty much the same things. I would ask those who are in fear of faster boats what it is that makes you think you're in such imminent danger. I ask this to honesty try to understand your mindset*. I would ask others opposing HB-162 to shut up and just listen, inquire respectfully but let's not degenerate into personal attacks and questioning of motives. Certainly there are those who have ulterior motives but I'm also sure there are some who are genuinely concerned about their safety. It's these people that I'd like to understand.

As to complaining customers I really do think that overcrowding and the cut-throat atmosphere this brings out is at the heart of their complaints. It's like taking country people to drive in Boston (or worse DC), it's intimidating to the newbie (and aggravating to everyone).

Mee-n-Mac · 12-01-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

{snip} So I'm sure the legislators will eventually realize that there's money to be made in boat speeding fines. And so will the insurance companies. Just like with autos, insurance rates will increase with tickets and insurance companies will start giving safety grants so the MP can buy radar guns. The legislator may even link boat speeding tickets with your auto driving record, they already do for DUI/BUI.

I would opine that the insurance companies are the most likely supporters for $$ reasons, after all they are a for profit business. With some few exceptions I tend to doubt that legislators, local or state, care all that much. They are caught in the trap of trying to *do something*.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy

I think fear is a good reason for a speed limit. There is the fear a camp director has in sending children out in small boats. Or the child that can't play in the water because their parents are afraid of the traffic and speed. Or the islander that can't get to the mainland on a weekend.

Fear of accident or death is a very valid reason to enact legislation. Especially when those fears are reasonable, as they are here.

Bear Islander,
With all due respect, are you plugged in? Nothing you just said makes sense. The camp director SHOULD have fear when he is dealing with children that are his responsibility.I am sure there are safe coves,no-wake zones,etc. that are safe for children who are boating..What child cant play in the water?( maybe in the middle of the broads.) Are you expecting high speed runs near shore? And as far as an islander not being able to get to shore?. Is there a go-fast ,just waiting around the corner to terrorize the islander every time he or she heads out?

Mee-n-Mac · 12-01-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pm203

Bear Islander,
With all due respect, are you plugged in? Nothing you just said makes sense. The camp director SHOULD have fear when he is dealing with children that are his responsibility.I am sure there are safe coves,no-wake zones,etc. that are safe for children who are boating..What child cant play in the water?( maybe in the middle of the broads.) Are you expecting high speed runs near shore? And as far as an islander not being able to get to shore?. Is there a go-fast ,just waiting around the corner to terrorize the islander every time he or she heads out?

As a person who doesn't agree with HB-162, can I ask you to chill, just a bit, here. I'm honestly interested in trying to understand why BI or FLL or ?? feels so afraid. I'd like to engage in some dialogue on this topic but it's hard to do when everyone gets their "hackles up". I understand your desire to respond but Webmaster Don has given us all an opportunity to converse on the topic and I'd like to think we all can do a little better than past threads indicate (at least starting out ). Comments like "are you plugged in" aren't overly conducive to this. I'm sure in time various agent provocateurs (they exist on both sides and no I don't think you're one of them) will ruin the discourse but may I please ask everyone to think twice and type once (to coin a phrase) ?

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 06:44 PM

Mee n Mac,
I didn,t think that "not being plugged in" was that offensive.I find alot of questionable comments on here that just do not make sense. However, for the good of the forum,I will tone it down and chill out.

Bear Islander · 12-01-2005, 07:04 PM

pm203

If a camp is in Alton Bay for instance, where is the nearest quiet cove? How do the children in sail boats, canoes and row boats get from the camp to the quiet cove without traveling through heavy traffic? How many miles can a 7 year old row a boat to this cove? Many years ago I was the director of a New Hampshire children's camp, thankfully not on Winni. Many times I watched helplessly from shore when speed boats came near my campers.

When you live on a point on Winni, like I do, you can get very nervous when swimmers are in the water. I dislike swimming out further than the end of my dock.

I have neighbors on Bear Island that do not go out in their boats on weekends. I guarantee you this is for real. Just like some people will not drive through Boston during rush hour.

jrc · 12-01-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I would opine that the insurance companies are the mostly likely supporters for $$ reasons, after all they are a for profit business. With some few exceptions I tend to doubt that legislators, local or state, care all that much. They are caught in the trap of trying to *do something*.

I didn't mean to imply any of the current HB162 support was related to revenue. I'm just predicting that in the future it will be, just like auto tickets clearly are today.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

pm203

If a camp is in Alton Bay for instance, where is the nearest quiet cove? How do the children in sail boats, canoes and row boats get from the camp to the quiet cove without traveling through heavy traffic? How many miles can a 7 year old row a boat to this cove? Many years ago I was the director of a New Hampshire children's camp, thankfully not on Winni. Many times I watched helplessly from shore when speed boats came near my campers.

When you live on a point on Winni, like I do, you can get very nervous when swimmers are in the water. I dislike swimming out further than the end of my dock.

I have neighbors on Bear Island that do not go out in their boats on weekends. I guarantee you this is for real. Just like some people will not drive through Boston during rush hour.

Yes, your concerns do sound genuine. I as well,would be concerned. I just dont feel that performance boats or speed should be targeted.Everything you described will still be of concern even if all performance boats are eradicated from the lake.Boater education and enforcement of existing laws are a much better way to solve the issue of safety.

Taz · 12-01-2005, 07:35 PM

I read an article recently that indicated many of the the reps are in favor of amending HB162 by removing the 45 & 25 numbers & changing it to what ever speed is reasonable for the specific situation. If that happens it will take the meat out of the law & those who want to go 60, 70, 80 in the Broads or larger bays will be free to do so.

Thats the way it should be. So high performance owners don't fret.

pm203 · 12-01-2005, 07:37 PM

Common sense will always be common sense.If someone is driving to endanger,citate!

ApS · 12-01-2005, 07:51 PM

Ah'm sellin' this here Bass Boat. Nuthin' wrong with it. Jes' takin' bestest offer.
Yuh unnerstan', Ah ain't afeered of nuthin' on Winnipesaukee.
Have Ah got the rite forum?

chase1 · 12-01-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

I read an article recently that indicated many of the the reps are in favor of amending HB162 by removing the 45 & 25 numbers & changing it to what ever speed is reasonable for the specific situation. If that happens it will take the meat out of the law & those who want to go 60, 70, 80 in the Broads or larger bays will be free to do so.

Thats the way it should be. So high performance owners don't fret.

That is how the current law stands. Do you have a link.

WeirsBeachBoater · 12-01-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Ah'm sellin' this here Bass Boat. Nuthin' wrong with it. Jes' takin' bestest offer.
Yuh unnerstan', Ah ain't afeered of nuthin' on Winnipesaukee.
Have Ah got the rite forum?

But you might have been a victim of the 150' rule in that particular photo. Also not interested in your bass boat, but those ones in the background sure are nice!

BroadHopper · 12-01-2005, 10:49 PM

Acres per Second. Sounds like you are very contrdictory. Naming yourself 'Acres per second' when you have to go faster than 45 mph to cover an acre per second!

Woodsy · 12-01-2005, 10:50 PM

Don... Thanks for what seems like our own little place to debate this hot button topic. It will be nice to debate how to turn lemons into lemonade.

Mee & Mac... well said! I think that everyones opinion should be treated with respect. Both sides of the issue have some very valid points, they just disagree albiet strongly about how to go about it. All sides need to keep the name calling to themselves.

PM203... didn't mean to dump on you, but you got the hint.

Bear Islander... Fear is never a good reason for legislation that limits an individuals personal freedom. It should be that absolute last resort after all else has failed.

I would be careful swimming off your dock as well, especially considering the picture you posted of your own boat driving by it, approximately 4' away, while on plane! Probably traveling at about 25 MPH or so? I also understand that some people don't want to take thier boats out on the weekends because they are afraid. The real question is, afraid of what exactly? Getting hit by a Performance Boat? Or just getting hit by a boat in general? Is it because they have a small boat? Be honest, they are concerned about being hit in general. I doubt boat size matters all that much as long as it is bigger than thier boat. Your little slice of the lake is extremely busy and rough on weekends. A speed limit is going to do nothing to alleviate those conditions. Its also going to do nothing when a noisy boat idles thru the NWZ by the Post Office at 3am, and gets back on plane just past your house either.

A Camp Director should be VERY concerned about ANY powerboats near children that are traveling at ANY speed. That being said, it is his responsibility to make sure the children are safe and after hearing one of them speak, I am sure its a charge they don't take lightly. There are many ways that will help to improve the safety of the children yet not restrict another individuals personal freedom. All of the kids on the water in kayaks or canoes should be in brightly safety orange painted boats with bright orange lifejackets. Perhaps putting in a string of NWZ marker bouys 150' off the camp? I don't think the MP would balk, and certainly I think most, if not all boaters would be for it. Perhaps even help pay for them. The busiest times for boating are friday afternoon until sunday afternoon. The kids are usually at the camps for a week or two at a time. They could limit thier excursions beyond the 150' safety mark to the 4.5 days of the week when the lake isn't busy. They could/should have a larger motorboat idling with the kids as they paddle or sail beyond the 150' safety zone, perhaps flying a big orange flag. Sailboats should be highly visible just because of thier sails, but safety orange sails would be a good thing. Kids who want to go swimming beyond the swim markers should be required to wear a bright orange PFD and not be allowed to venture beyond the proposed 150' NWZ markers. This proposal doesn't infringe on the kids freedom right to enjoy the lake, nor the boaters freedom. It actually makes for a much safer environment for the kids.

APS... Pix can be decieving as all of the boats are pretty much in the same spot. because of this it is very difficult to judge the actual distance between the boats. You can't really judge speed in the pic either. Assuming your pic is correct, I think that education will help to solve thew 150' violation.

EVERYBODY should be REQUIRED to have a SAFE BOATERS CERTIFICATE! NO EXCEPTIONS! My personal freedom should not be infringed upon because a marina owner wants to rent an 1800lb boat for $200/hr to someone who has a credit card with room for a $2500 damage claim, yet posesses no working knowledge of the rules & regulations except for a 20 question quiz and no experience with boat handling!

I think if we restricted boat rentals to those who people who posses a Safe Boaters Certificate, tour companies like the Winni Water Taxi would be a viable, thriving yet safe business.

Woodsy

Mee-n-Mac · 12-01-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pm203

Mee n Mac,
I didn,t think that "not being plugged in" was that offensive.I find alot of questionable comments on here that just do not make sense. However, for the good of the forum,I will tone it down and chill out.

Thanks. It's not that the wording was *offensive* but rather, hmmm let me search for words here, set an inflammatory tone perhaps.... I'd like to understand the fear viewpoint (if only to satisfy my own curiousity) and it's hard to get people to open up if they think it's only going to lead to ridicule. Unfortunately on a topic as emotional as this one is, I'm probably playing the part of Don Quixote in this endevour.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-02-2005, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

I didn't mean to imply any of the current HB162 support was related to revenue. I'm just predicting that in the future it will be, just like auto tickets clearly are today.

Aaah, kinda hard to give up the gravy train once it gets running.

There may be another parallel in that once the Federal Gov't was forced to give up on the NMSL/55, the states were left to persue "safety". It took a while but you see less enforcement for simple speeding and more concentration on "agressive driving". I wish they'd hand out more tickets for tailgating.

krwxcr700 · 12-02-2005, 09:21 AM

It looks like my boat. If it was on July 30, 2005 outside of Winter Harbor it is me. The Marine Patrol came by for 1/2 an hour and those boats didn't buzz me at that point but as soon as the MP left it was back to the way the picture is.

Ski Man · 12-02-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

most Courts using the unreasonable speed standard will allow a driver up to and around 15 MPH over the posted limit before convicting. In short, regardless of the posted limit, the officer must show that the speed you were cited for was unreasonable given the prevailing overall conditions at the time of the stop.

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

winnilaker · 12-02-2005, 11:43 AM

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...oc/nhspeed.pdf

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm

Commisioner Sweeney (Dept of Safety) testified to the R, R & D to his successful convictions using this law. You might find this interesting, but you can use this law to fight a speeding ticket if you can prove that given the conditions you were driving reasonable and prudent, regardless of the posted speed limit. (This is how Commisioner Sweeney explained it to the committee, not me) For example: a performace car on rt106 traveling at 65 mph and no traffic may be perfectly reasonable and prudent. It can handle and stop better than a minivan and there were no other cars on the road.

Keep this in mind with your next speeding ticket.

winnilaker · 12-02-2005, 11:51 AM

to highlight this statement in that document

"III. Based on engineering and traffic investigations, a local government may increase or decrease prima facie speed limits within their jurisdictions.4 '265:63, I & II"

Do we have the facts to support "engineering and traffic investigations" which shows 45 mph day and 25 night are the right limits? Or is Pilliod's response that "45 is plenty fast enough to enjoy boating" good enough for law?

jrc · 12-02-2005, 12:17 PM

First we already have this NH law for boating:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

This is a misdemeanor, which is much worse than a speeding violation.

Second, getting out of an auto ticket, where you are doing above the posted limit is very tough. In 265:60 you'll find "...any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful..." then a list of limits. If the posted limits are less than these limits and the local jurisdiction doesn't have the engineering studies to back it up, then you should be able to get off. But that's a very narrow exception.

Skip · 12-02-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

There are two basic types of speed laws......prima facie & absolute.

If you go read New Hampshire's speed regulations (RSA 265:60) you will find that exceeding the speed limits posted in most cases is prima facie evidence that you violated the RSA. Therefore most of New Hampshire's speed limits are prima facie limits. Basically, prima facie means "sufficient to establish fact or case unless disproved". That's where the individual cited has an opportunity to go to court and plea his case that the speed cited given the conditions at the time of stop were not unreasonable.

The second type of speed law is absolute. RSA 265:60 makes speeding on the 65 MPH turnpike system an absolute violation by clearly stating that no person shall travel beyond the posted limit. Several surrounding States also have absolute limits, where the State must only prove that you exceeded the limit, not that the exception was unreasonable.

Each Department in New Hampshire is well aware of the preferences of the Court they prosecute in, and each has their own internal guidleines as when to stop a speeder and give that person a warning or summons. There is also great latitude given to the individual officer to use his own discretion when dealing with speeders. There is no "etched in stone" speed windows that you can guarantee yourself a not guilty finding, just general guidelines that officers learn through training and experience.

One of the key points to this whole debate will be how the final law is drafted. Will the 45/25 limits be addressed as prima facie limits or will it be an absolute limit.

Please read RSA 265:60 carefully. I believe the latitude I describe is self evident in its language:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm

As always, please feel free to PM me if you have any additional questions....

Merry Christmas,

Skip

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

Happened to me twice while fighting "silly speeding tickets" in court, once in Plaistow and once in Salem. Both times the judge ruled that while he believed I was indeed exceeding the posted limit and I wasn't doing anything unsafe considering the conditions. He was, of course, correct.

I won another court battle similarly when I was cited for a double yellow line violation for starting to overtake a few feet before the dashed line started. There was no difference in visibility, just an issue with a painted line being in the wrong place. Why the police officer was so concerned about it was beyond me. That was in Wolfeboro.

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Ah'm sellin' this here Bass Boat. Nuthin' wrong with it. Jes' takin' bestest offer.
Yuh unnerstan', Ah ain't afeered of nuthin' on Winnipesaukee.
Have Ah got the rite forum?

Can't really tell the separation in that photo due to the long lens used. Long lenses compress everything and distort perspective.

Here's a wonderful example of how much the lens can alter the view:

chase1 · 12-02-2005, 03:01 PM

If one is to use the argument that our lakes should be subject to a speed limit because we have speed limits on our roadways couldn't you use the same logic and say that we do not need speed limits on our roadways?
Statistics show that more people die in automobiles every year and I am sure some people just are too afraid to drive. I know my grandmother won’t drive anymore because she is scared of those big loud tractor trailers that thunder by at such close range, and loud bikes make her jump. Just think of how much safer your kids would be when playing in the yard if all cars were 150 feet from your property line.
Why don’t we get some rep to sponsor a bill that implements a safe passage law for our roadways and eliminates current speed limits.

FAASS- Family Alliance for Auotmobile Safety and Stuff

Sorry if anyone is offended but I just do not get any of the reasons stated for this proposed law.

If the majority of the population (NH Residents) were uneducated (regarding current safety statistics, laws and experience operating a marine vessels within states inland waterways ) will a democracy yield the best results for government actions.

Chase1

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

pm203

If a camp is in Alton Bay for instance, where is the nearest quiet cove? How do the children in sail boats, canoes and row boats get from the camp to the quiet cove without traveling through heavy traffic? How many miles can a 7 year old row a boat to this cove? Many years ago I was the director of a New Hampshire children's camp, thankfully not on Winni. Many times I watched helplessly from shore when speed boats came near my campers.

When you live on a point on Winni, like I do, you can get very nervous when swimmers are in the water. I dislike swimming out further than the end of my dock.

I have neighbors on Bear Island that do not go out in their boats on weekends. I guarantee you this is for real. Just like some people will not drive through Boston during rush hour.

Not saying this isn't a problem but it seems like it's already well covered by the no wake/150' laws. Not sure It would make much difference if a swimmer was hit by a boat going 40 MPH or 50 MPH, either would most likely be fatal.

Bear Islander · 12-02-2005, 03:45 PM

Dave

The speed limit is not about getting boats to go 40 instead of 50. Its about getting them to go 45 instead of 90.

Yes, the swimmer hit by a boat is just as dead at either speed, but you are missing the point. At the slower speed the driver has twice the time to see the swimmer and turn. The swimmer has twice the time to dive or get out of the way.

And with a speed limit, that boat able to go 90 may be in the Atlantic Ocean, where it should be.

Islander · 12-02-2005, 03:51 PM

It is hard for me to believe that some are arguing that speed has nothing to do with safety. Obviously safety is reduced as speed is increased, anything else is just silly - or denial.

"Speed Kills" is the watchword of every law enforcement agency in the country....... except the NH Marine Patrol!

chase1 · 12-02-2005, 04:54 PM

Bear with me, but why do some feel the GFBL boats will vanish if HB162 passes?????

And with a speed limit, that boat able to go 90 may be in the Atlantic Ocean, where it should be.[/QUOTE]

I am trying to understand but please help me. I have only had positive experiences on the lake.

"where it should be"

Who is to determine where any type of boat should be. Some state rep? The majority? Old man Wilson? Winni is a Big Lake and the arguement could be made that small boats belong on small lakes and if you want your kids to learn how to sail a small boat they should go to one of the many other lakes within our state. Heck many such lakes have had powerboats baned all together so they will be extremely quiet and there no worry regarding boat speed.
Where should the 40' live aboard cabin cruiser be?
Where should the small 18' bass boat be?
Where should the competition ski boat be?
Where should the pontoon boat be?
Where should the 14' scout be?
What about all of the small boats in the Atlantic....By this type of logic they should not be allowed anywhere but the lake. Although I do not agree it may make more sense when you concider how many small boat accidents occur off the coast and in the rivers.
I grew up on a small lake and now boat on Winni. I wanted a bigger type boat so I moved to the big lake. Don't spin this agound. You do not need to have a big boat to be on Winni. I still have small boats too. In fact I summer on an island and run back and forth to the mainland all weekend long on a pontoon boat or small center console. I can not understand anyone who says they can't do that becauyse of the conjestion or GFBL boats.
Boats are made for water and it is the owners who decide where to use them. No manufacture puts a decal on there boat that says use in the ocean or use in lakes.
Speed limit or no speed limit my GFBL will remain on the lake and see the same usage. If gas prices didn't keep my boat at the dock a speed limit won't.

Chase1

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

It is hard for me to believe that some are arguing that speed has nothing to do with safety. Obviously safety is reduced as speed is increased, anything else is just silly - or denial.

"Speed Kills" is the watchword of every law enforcement agency in the country....... except the NH Marine Patrol!

The watchword should really be "speed raises revenue"... You never see speed traps in places where speeding is unsafe. They always seem to be in places where the roads are straight and wide. I hear one can completely flaunt speed limit laws with almost no fear of tickets on curvy narrow back roads if they want to...

Speed never killed anyone. Collisions kill. I wonder how many collisions there have been on the lake involving boats where at least one boat is going more than 45 and no laws were broken. Bet the number is quite low, maybe 0. There is no excuse for collisions on the water. They are entirely due to negligence of one sort or another and probably already illegal.

If 45 is twice as safe as 90 then 22.5 must be twice as safe as 45 and 11.25 must be twice as safe as 22.5 and 0 must be infinitely more safe than moving at all. Why 45? I can think of plenty of sitautions where 45 would be legal but entirely unsafe. It's just an arbitrary number that most new boats will just barely exceed.

Cal · 12-02-2005, 05:48 PM

Most all the reasons FOR a speed limit are really great BUT go ahead and make the speed limit 25 all the time and it won't change most of the concerns stated. Boats will still be close to each other going too fast , they'll still be too close to shore , to close to docks , to close to swimmers , discourteous boater , clueless boaters , the Alton Bay camp director will still have to worry about his kids when they're out in a sail boat ( if he doesn't he better be replaced). Weekends will still be overly crowded. I've been on the lake in a 17 footer on the week end and a speed limit won't change the water conditions with all the boats present. Stop and think for a minute...if you removed all the other boats and left the go fasts , that would eliminate most all the problems previously stated by other people. This of course is not the answer , but mark my words "Neither is a speed limit".
But I guess all of you who are FOR it will have to be shown the truth after it passes

OK , I'm off my soap box

winnilaker · 12-02-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

It is hard for me to believe that some are arguing that speed has nothing to do with safety. Obviously safety is reduced as speed is increased, anything else is just silly - or denial.

"Speed Kills" is the watchword of every law enforcement agency in the country....... except the NH Marine Patrol!

What the difference, that same thinking should tell us to lower our highways to a much lower level. There are many accidents on our roadways and I think if every road in NH had a speed limit of 45 or lower we will have less accidents, yes?

Stating that speed causes safety issues is inaccurate, speed CAN magnify things for sure, but that can be said with anything.

And the Marine Patrol never stated, at least at all the testimonials that I witnessed, that speed cannot be a factor in an accident or cannot kill. Their points are clear, difficult to enforce, no data shows the need and they don't think it will achieve the desired impact. When supporters state "we don't boat anymore because its too rough, therefore we need speed limits to slow everyone down" , you boaters have to clearly see the flaw in that statement.

Ski Man · 12-02-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

you can use this law to fight a speeding ticket if you can prove that given the conditions you were driving reasonable and prudent, regardless of the posted speed limit.

The statute clearly states "but any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful"

The DOT synopsis clearly states that "operating a motor vehicle above the following speed limits is considered prima facie evidence that such speed is unreasonable"

I am unable to find a single case in New Hampshire where a speeding violation was dismissed expressly on the basis that the posted speed limit was less than "reasonable and prudent" because prevailing conditions were ideal, traffic was light, or such. I see numerous cases where bad conditions were used by the police to establish that the speed limit was actually higher than "reasonable and prudent", and to get speeding convictions of those travelling below the posted limit, but not a single case where a speed limit was effectively raised by a court due to optimal conditions or such. Did the Asst Cmm give any particular cases where the "reasonable and prudent, although over the speed limit" argument succeeded in court?

BroadHopper · 12-02-2005, 06:07 PM

Cal, Once Rep. Pilliod pass this law, he is going to pass another law in limiting the size of boats. The same people who are 'scared' of the go fast boats are also 'scared' of big boat wake. He said to a number of people that the go fast boats and the big cruisers belong on the ocean. I'm surprise that he extended the HB to include the intercoastal waters off NH. 25 mph is maximum wake speed for a lot of boats. Can you imagine the economy that we will be losing???????

A number of boating magazines reported Winnipesaukee as one of the top destination spot. Looks like they will be saying the opposite.

Bear Islander · 12-02-2005, 06:13 PM

chase1

I do not agree with your statement "Boats are made for water and it is the owners who decide where to use them". The citizens of NH own the lake, and ultimately they decide the boating laws. Shorty their elected representatives will vote on HB162 and we will all have to live with the results.

GFBL boats will not vanish. But over time there will be fewer of them. People have complained in this very forum that they will be trailering elsewhere if HB162 passes.

You ask if a 40' cabin cruiser is OK. I ask where is the limit? Is it 60' or 100' or even 200'? Where is the limit?

How big a wake is to big? How much shore erosion is to much? How much pollution is unhealthy? How much noise is acceptable? How fast is unsafe? There is a limit to everything, and I believe we are there.

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You ask if a 40' cabin cruiser is OK. I ask where is the limit? Is it 60' or 100' or even 200'? Where is the limit?

How big a wake is to big? How much shore erosion is to much? How much pollution is unhealthy? How much noise is acceptable? How fast is unsafe? There is a limit to everything, and I believe we are there.

205' to 225' has been OK on the lake for longer than I've been alive. I don't think it's the size of the vessel that matters, it's the manner in which it's operated.

I bet the weather causes vastly more shoreland erosion than wakes. It's pretty relentless. Look at what all the flooding did. Seems like mother nature can and will do a lot more damage to herself than we ever do.

Silver Duck · 12-02-2005, 07:13 PM

..and see if there's any common ground on any part of this issue. So far, all the shootin' seems to be over the 45 mph day time limit. How do you all feel about the proposed 25 mph night time limit?

Personally, I feel that 25 mph is way too fast at night for safe operation (with a few rare exceptions when we have a very bright moon out!) Even with a GPS and a high dgree of familiarity with the lake, I don't like to go up on plane at night, and I've noticed that most of my dockmates prefer to meander along at night, too.

However, I'm also aware that slowing down night time traffic would be a big hassle for island folks (many of whom, by personal observation, are experienced enough with commuting in the dark to run on plane.)

So, what's the general feeling on this topic? Is 25 too slow, too fast, or just about right?

Silver Duck

Mee-n-Mac · 12-02-2005, 07:28 PM

Probably not too surprisingly I have some thoughts on what might be reasonable speed limits that I've not previously spewed but now that the flood gates are open, here's some thinking for your consideration ....

The above posts by BI, Islander, Dave R and Winnilaker are interesting because there is a way to begin to reconcile these apparently opposite positions. First I'd like to state a few principles and concepts that I think we all can agree to. First is that everyone should be operating their boat so that it doesn't cause injury to anyone else. Second it is the sole responsibility of the captain to accomplish this. Third any speed limit to be set*, should be set such that the actions of a reasonable person, acting in accordance with the above principles, aren't unlawful. Let me explain the last bit in more detail. Should there be a need to limit speed, the limit isn't set that such a one eyed sailor, blind drunk in his good eye, will always be able to avoid the collision (ie - limit too low). And the flip side is that any limit shouldn't require the operator to be Superman with x-ray vision, reflexes faster than a speeding train, etc, etc. A normal, reasonable, human person has to be able to avoid the collison. Typically these things are set at the 85% percentile, that is 85% of the population can do what's required. Lastly, just as we do on roadways, the limit isn't set according to the worst case environmental conditions. Expounding on this you don't set the posted maximum limit for foggy, raining, etc, conditions. You set for the normal conditions and while what's prudent and reasonable will vary with those conditions, it's the duty of the operator to slow down in accordance with the conditions. The roadway corollary is that when the road is slick with snow, the enforceable limit (you can be stopped and fined) is lower than the posted limit and it's the driver's responsibility to know this.

Given the above, what factors determine whether a collision will occur or not. Certainly the ability to see the hazard is prime and so at what distance can a reasonable person see the hazard ? This is largely independant of speed. Does the available sightline (how far can you see) exceed this distance ? How long will it take the operator to perceive and react to the hazard ? And lastly how much distance does the required control action (slowing or turning or both), to miss the target, take ? Combining all these, at some speed even Superman can't avoid the collision because his sightline is restricted or he, and/or the boat, can't react fast enough. And the other side at some speed even a drunk sailor is virtually guranteed to avoid the collision. In between these 2 speeds is where the reasonable man can avoid the collision and where the speed limit, if necessary, should be set.

Now there are a lot of gray areas and specifics that I've left unsaid but if we can't agree on the general concepts above there's no reason to get into them. *Also I've left out the practical issue of whether a limit, set in accordance with the above, is necessary or will accomplish anything. For the moment let's leave that discussion on the side.

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 07:29 PM

I would be completely supportive of a law that made it much tougher for negligent and ignorant boaters to get on the water. Imagine if more of us followed the simple and truly unobtrusive boating laws that already exist... If Mr. Pilliod really wants to make the lake less scary, he should educate the ignorant.

I would be much less scared by 90 MPH boats piloted by intelligent and safe boaters, than by 45 MPH boats piloted by folks who have no clue what to do. You?

How about the rest of you, especially those that support the speed limit; where do you think the emphasis belongs? Do you think the marine patrol should use their rescources to enforce speed laws or enforce existing boating laws?

Every hour taken to enforce speed laws is an hour taken away from enforcing 150' laws, performing safety checks, checking for proper boating "Safe Boating Certificates", etc. The supporters of the enforcement of the speed limit law on this forum are, in fact, supporting the reduction of the enforcement of already under-enforced existing laws. Way to go folks...

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

So, what's the general feeling on this topic? Is 25 too slow, too fast, or just about right?

Silver Duck

25 MPH at night seems like a reasonable limit to me. I don't exceed 25 at night but do safely run around 23 MPH (just over the minimum planing speed for my boat) or so, if condition and visibility permit. I don't need a law to tell me that a 35 MPH wind in my eyes is a bad thing at night. I'd still prefer there is no limit though. Would seem to me that most night time accidents probably involve more than just speed, speed and alcohol perhaps?

Dave R · 12-02-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

SNIP

Given the above, what factors determine whether a collision will occur or not. Certainly the ability to see the hazard is prime and so at what distance can a reasonable person see the hazard ? This is largely independant of speed. Does the available sightline (how far can you see) exceed this distance ? How long will it take the operator to perceive and react to the hazard ? And lastly how much distance does the required control action (slowing or turning or both), to miss the target, take ? Combining all these, at some speed even Superman can't avoid the collision because his sightline is restricted or he, and/or the boat, can't react fast enough. And the other side at some speed even a drunk sailor is virtually guranteed to avoid the collision. In between these 2 speeds is where the reasonable man can avoid the collision and where the speed limit, if necessary, should be set.

I agree with you in principle. Still see no need for a limit, yet. Statistics don't show a need and I'd rather see emphasis on fixing other obvious problems like lack of boater ed.

I got my Safe Boater Certificate years before it was required of me and do what I can to teach others safe boating as well. Wish Mr. Pilliod would push for that sort of behavior in the rest of us.

Mee-n-Mac · 12-02-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

{snip} So, what's the general feeling on this topic? Is 25 too slow, too fast, or just about right?

Silver Duck

I've tried to start to quantify this above but the variables for night boating are much harder to pin down. My experience is that ... it all depends. On a full moon night, where boat hulls are visible at distance, and little to no traffic, I've run 30 - 35. On more normal nights I run 25 - 30. Other times (no skylight, some boats out and about) I've run 20 - 25 and when there's restricted visibility (or leaving the fireworks show) it's NWS. My common run is from Meredith to Alton bay bay so it's long though not particularly difficult. The thing I stress is that when you sight another boat's lights it more difficult (vs daylight) to estimate it's distance and even harder, it's relative course. If the boat isn't identifiable with 2 secs as being "distant" it's time to throttle back and assess the situation.

Pineedles · 12-02-2005, 09:20 PM

I think this is the most number of posts in the shortest time period that I have seen on the Forum to date. I thought someone said that this wasn't going turn into a frenzied debate as it had previously?

BTW The autobahn in Germany has no posted speed limits, and it's acccident rate is less than comprable US Highway's accident rate. I believe it is .82 (US) vs. .76 (GE)accidents per 100,000 vehicles. Speed Kills? No, idiots kill, whether they be in boats or cars.

BroadHopper · 12-02-2005, 09:48 PM

The way I see it, I think Captain Bonehead is asking Rep Pilliod to enact all these crazy laws. That way the MP will be busy chasing others. Captain Bonehead is laughing his butts off!!!!

winnilaker · 12-02-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

So, what's the general feeling on this topic? Is 25 too slow, too fast, or just about right?

Silver Duck

I think that this is still too slow for some boats to plane efficiently, sure just about all boats can get on plane at slower speeds, with their tabs WAY down and creating a larger than ideal wake. One thing you can't see at night well is the wakes of other boats. If water is rough due to wind, its all rough, but on a smooth night, and you're cruising along and you pass another boat, I would perfer that the other boat is traveling at an efficient planing speed so that the wake is not excessive.

But I have the question, is it really needed? Of all the testimonials I heard, I didn't hear any about a night time incident involving excessive speed, EXCEPT those that included stories of intoxicated individuals and I don't believe a speed limit will effect those anyways. I boat at night a lot and trying to set aside my bias opinion, I don't see lots of boats flying around real fast at night. The only scary nights are firework nights and nobody is going above 25 with that many boats regardless.

chase1 · 12-02-2005, 11:02 PM

Bear Islander,

You ask if a 40' cabin cruiser is OK. I ask where is the limit? Is it 60' or 100' or even 200'? Where is the limit?

How big a wake is to big? How much shore erosion is to much? How much pollution is unhealthy? How much noise is acceptable? How fast is unsafe? There is a limit to everything, and I believe we are there.[/QUOTE]

That's my point......Who can make the decision that 45 or any number for that matter is the limit, if there isn't a problem. Current data shows boating to be extremely safe and above that, improving. What is the problem we are trying to address....I can not see any evidence it is safety related. If in fact the majority of accidents were due to speeds exceeding 45mph than it could be concluded that slowing everyone down would improve safety however there is no data to support this. Based on statistics I see no reason to be concerned with boating speeds or boating safety at all for that matter. There were 35 accidents and 2 fatalities for all NH registered boats in 2004 and there is nothing to show the proposed law would have made significant improvements or any at all.

What is the limit for spending?....What is the limit on how much the government can spend on programs that do not do anything. I work too hard for my money and consume far too much fuel to keep giving it up.

Again boats are made for water and it is the choice of the operator where that water is; lake, river, ocean. Limits will be determined by the next guy in line at the dealership (he owns the lake too). Unless overall public safety is at risk who has the right to set a limit????
The group who are afraid of GFBL boats.
The group who are afraid of cruisers.
The group who are afraid of clowns.
The group who are afraid of motorcycles
The group who are afraid to eat red meat.
The group who are afraid of pontoon boats.
What will we be left with.

Chase1

Islander · 12-03-2005, 12:41 AM

Chase

There is one statistic you may have missed. Not long ago one of our Bear Island neighbors was killed by a high performance boat. That boat was going at a speed that will be illegal if HB162 is passed. For most island residents that is the only statistic we need.

I know that many will quibble and try to explain away or excuse this "statistic".

What about the "personal freedom" of the rest of us that don't need to go 90 MPH. Offshore boats and huge cabin cruisers were designed for the ocean, not 150' (or less) from our docks.

ApS · 12-03-2005, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

Can't really tell the separation in that photo due to the long lens used. Long lenses compress everything and distort perspective.

Eye witness needed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwxcr700

It looks like my boat. If it was on July 30, 2005 outside of Winter Harbor it is me. The Marine Patrol came by for 1/2 an hour and those boats didn't buzz me at that point but as soon as the MP left it was back to the way the picture is.

That was very likely your boat: The date and location is correct.

Strange, that two MP boats were present in your location. Just one should have been sufficient to slow traffic. I was hugging the shoreline -- so closely that a family approached and asked if I wanted to substitute their video camera for my still camera to record the violations!

Here's another guy enjoying the hills and mountains of Winnipesaukee's scenic landscape -- headed your way. (Like Littlefield, we can't determine his speed with precision, either).

(Copplecrown Mountain, marking the southeastern edge of the Winnipesaukee Basin, is in the background).

Dave R · 12-03-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Chase

There is one statistic you may have missed. Not long ago one of our Bear Island neighbors was killed by a high performance boat. That boat was going at a speed that will be illegal if HB162 is passed. For most island residents that is the only statistic we need.

I know that many will quibble and try to explain away or excuse this "statistic".

What about the "personal freedom" of the rest of us that don't need to go 90 MPH. Offshore boats and huge cabin cruisers were designed for the ocean, not 150' (or less) from our docks.

I lost a friend this Summer because a woman made an illegal left turn in a Volvo and put the car directly in his path. He was not killed by a Volvo and no one is trying to ban Volvos from the highways, he was killed by an inattentive driver. Your neighbor was not killed by a boat but rather by the operator of the boat. I seriously doubt the operator of that boat, who so flagrantly flaunted other laws, would have been affected much by something as benign as a speed limit.

The guilty boat operator's incarceration is a vastly more appropriate response to the tragedy that took your neighbor than some law aimed at banning the brand and style boat he was operating. Maybe justice was not fully served in this case, but a speeding violation conviction on top of the other convictions would do absolutely nothing to the sentence and probably would not have even been pursued by the prosecutor.

Just to make it clear, I don't own a fast or loud boat, don't ever intend to, and find the noise many of them generate quite irritating. I do think the lake would be more peaceful and pleasant if the loud boats were to disappear. However, I will not ever support a law that aims to discriminate against folks for their taste in boats, or anything else that's legal to own. I also could not care less if someone wants to quietly and safely go very fast across the water. I honestly hope they are making memories that are as wonderful as the memories I've made on the lake. Those folks are not affecting your personal freedom at all.

Cal · 12-03-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Chase

There is one statistic you may have missed. Not long ago one of our Bear Island neighbors was killed by a high performance boat. That boat was going at a speed that will be illegal if HB162 is passed. For most island residents that is the only statistic we need.

I know that many will quibble and try to explain away or excuse this "statistic".

What about the "personal freedom" of the rest of us that don't need to go 90 MPH. Offshore boats and huge cabin cruisers were designed for the ocean, not 150' (or less) from our docks.

What WAS the speed of this boat you speak of??? 46? 49? 82? Now look at how many have been killed and/or injured by boats under 45 say , in the last twenty years.
It sounds like somebody was already breaking the 150 rule , so you think the a speed limit would have helped? If they were clueless or careless enough to break one rule I doubt another would make much difference.
I'm certainly not making light of your neighbors death , it was a tragedy , but thinkgs like this occur everyday. Whether its a boat , falling off a ladder , or slipping on ice , tragedies like this do occur. We can't live in a vacuum

Skip · 12-03-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

...What WAS the speed of this boat you speak of??? 46? 49? 82? Now look at how many have been killed and/or injured by boats under 45 say , in the last twenty years.
It sounds like somebody was already breaking the 150 rule , so you think the a speed limit would have helped? ...

The actual estimated speed was 28 MPH, just 3 MPH above the recommended RSA.

This is well within the margin of error of most speedometers (10%) and unless (by some miracle) an MP officer was directly in front or to the rear of the Littlefield boat, his radar gun reading would have been below the actual 28 MPH speed. Readings taken at an angle almost always show less than true speed, and virtually all readings are taken at some type of offset angle (most are smart enough not to take a reading directly in the path of the oncoming target).

So even if an MP had been stationed in the area on the night of question, common sense (and even a rudimentary understanding of how traffic radar operates and is employed) dictates that Littlefield would probably not have been stopped for speed prior to the collision.

This particular RSA would not have made a difference.

Islander · 12-03-2005, 12:09 PM

Didn't I predict that people would quible and explain away the simple facts. Enforcement, radar and bow angles are not the question. 28 is more than 25, end of story!

One again you guys are TOTALY MISSING THE POINT!

If HB162 had passed 5 years ago there is an excellent chance that the Littlefield boat would not have even been on the lake!

Bear Lover · 12-03-2005, 01:08 PM

I don't think 32' Carvers belong on Winni either.

Its not about the "type" of boat. HPBs and smaller power boats are being pushed off the lake by an ever increasing need for size and speed. It isn't right, it isn't fair and it isn't safe.

Enough is enough!

Cal · 12-03-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The actual estimated speed was 28 MPH, just 3 MPH above the recommended RSA.

So it could be 25 , it could be 30 and in this case it could have been 40' cruiser that has a top speed of 39 mph or a 17' bowrider

Sorry , I did realize we were talking about this case. I thought the victim was a swimmer or something.
I'm not even going to argue this point any more since there's a lot more involved in this than we'll ever know

Mee-n-Mac · 12-03-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Didn't I predict that people would quible and explain away the simple facts. Enforcement, radar and bow angles are not the question. 28 is more than 25, end of story!

One again you guys are TOTALY MISSING THE POINT!

If HB162 had passed 5 years ago there is an excellent chance that the Littlefield boat would not have even been on the lake!

I don't think people are quibbling at all, they're trying to point out that a night time speed limit of 25 mph can't reasonably be expected to have prevented this accident. It's unreasonable to think that the MP would have stopped Littlefield that night, even if they had measured his true speed. Littlefield had more than ample time to have seen and have avoided the Hartman boat. He never took any evasive action so if he had been going 25 vs 28, it's reasonable to expect that the collision would still have occured and no reason to believe the outcome would have been any better.

As for the excellent chance that the Baja wouldn't have been on the lake ... well let me ask you to think about 2 things. First speed limits on our roadways haven't stopped people from buying performance oriented cars like Porches, Ferrari's and even more mundane Mustangs, so I tend to disbelieve the chance is excellent. But let's say that it is and replay that night. Littlefield gets into a boat like mine, a pedestrian 24' Wellcraft, and heads out that night. Are you saying the collision is now almost guaranteed to not happen ?

Islander · 12-03-2005, 02:08 PM

A 24' Wellcraft is about the same size and weight as the Hartman boat. There would have been a collision but perhaps no death. The Littfield boat was much heavier, had more inertia and had a high bow causing it to go up and over the Hartman boat. Have you seen the re-enactment photo?

If you own a Ferrari there is nowhere you can go to open it up legally. A valid analogy would be if there were some highways with speed limits and some highways with none. If RT 93 in NH had no speed limit but all other highways in New England did, what would happen? Rt 93 would be where owners of high performance cars would come to so they could drive at 120 plus. This would not be a safe thing for a family car going 65 on Rt 93.

Other than Winni there are not many large bodies of water around without speed limits. There is of course the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. And by the way, Lake Champlain is a Great Lake and is not a U.S. lake.

pm203 · 12-03-2005, 02:22 PM

I have news for you. I have not found one HP boat owner that will leave if the speed limit law is passed.

Islander · 12-03-2005, 02:36 PM

Ranger

I like this question!

I would set a 60/30 speed limit and a 500 Horsepower limit for boats manufactured after 2005. Exceptions of course for commercial vessels, law enforcement and sanctioned events.

Skip · 12-03-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

...If HB162 had passed 5 years ago there is an excellent chance that the Littlefield boat would not have even been on the lake!...

Hmmmm,

So you predict that if speed limits had been enacted prior to the collision, the Littlefields would have immediately sold their performance boat...

OK

So I predict thay would have then replaced it with a 32 to 40 foot range Carver style behemoth cruiser.

Now place them in that same craft at 28 MPH and replay the same scenario. You still have the same horrific outcome.

When you sppend the day imbibing alcohol, the first part of your thought process that goes out the window is rationality . Regardless of the craft operated that night, technicalities like speed limits would have been the furthest from anyone in Littlefield's condition thoughts.

Littlefield had violated far more severe rules than a paltry three MPH over a theoretical speed limit. If he had simply given the keys to a sober adult, or found an alternative method to get home, tragedy would easily have been avoided.

I am continually amazed that there was such a muted protest raised about the concerns of drinking and driving. If ever an incident screamed for stronger enforcement and enhanced penalties of existing law, this crime made an excellent example.

And yet this crime has been hijacked as an example to enact new legislation for regulations that have been shown time & again, through well documented State & Federal boating accident statistics, to have a minimal impact on boating injuries & fatalities.

But that's what happens when laws are passed based on emotions & prejudices and not sound scientific & human principle.

But all is not lost. Since we are all doing "predictions" here, I figure that this bill, if enacted, will have a very short life span before modified heavily or thrown out completely. The bill was sold as a Winnipesaukee only solution, with the public hearings and the bulk of publicity held in the immediate Lakes region. Many other boaters in the State, led to believe that bill would not affect them (especially here on the inland coastal areas, where it appears the sailors here have a much better appreciation of existing ample regulation) will slowly awaken to the fact they were left out of the process and make their concerns known if and when the legislation proposed affects them.

Have to go and get that new snowmobile of mine ready for the upcoming season, but in a subsequent post I'll explain why this is really much ado about nothing....because most people will still go about their merry way after a short respite when they realize that just as very few people are ever stopped for speeding on our roadways (where enforcement can be much more enhanced and targeted) so to will it be on the waterways of New Hampshire!

Islander · 12-03-2005, 02:53 PM

I don't think it would be fair to outlaw boats that are already on the lake. Over time the number of boats over 500 HP would drop. Most people with lots of money to spend want new boats. There would probably be good business in rebuilding old cabin cruisers. But the numbers would drop.

Just my opinion.

Islander · 12-03-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pm203

I have news for you. I have not found one HP boat owner that will leave if the speed limit law is passed.

Thats funny because one of the main arguments against speed limits was that they would ruin the lake area economy.

Anyway I don't really want anybody to leave, I just want to keep more from coming. And it is not so much 2006 I am worried about but 2016 or 2026. I don't like the direction we are going in.

If HB162 passes lets take a ride on the lake in 2016 and see how many boats we find capable of going over 90. Whatever that number is, it will be a lot less than if HB162 is defeated. And THAT is the point.

ApS · 12-03-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

"...So you predict that if speed limits had been enacted prior to the collision, the Littlefields would have immediately sold their performance boat...OK...So I predict thay would have then replaced it with a 32 to 40 foot range Carver style behemoth cruiser...Now place them in that same craft at 28 MPH and replay the same scenario. You still have the same horrific outcome...."

Actually, the outcome would have been much better for Littlefield (and for all boaters with oversized craft).

Littlefield "Felt a bump" when his 4½ ton boat crushed the Hartman's small boat — killing one.

With his new 14-ton Carver 40, AND totally unaware, he would have been reading Citizen headlines of a fiberglass and vinyl "debris field" found by boaters near Meredith — and of a family that didn't return home that night.

You don't have the same horrific outcome at all. It's worse.

Unfortunately, these accident headlines are replayed every weekend on inland lakes. Ask anyone well-versed in performance boating.

Pineedles · 12-03-2005, 08:46 PM

Skip,

You're right on the button. I agree with your statement.

If ever an incident screamed for stronger enforcement and enhanced penalties of existing law, this crime made an excellent example. Referencing the Littlefield incident.

People ignore existing laws and will ignore new ones, without adequate enforcement and a judicial system that will penalize those who break them.

11-29-2005, 06:48 PM	#1
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hb 162 News HB162 was passed by the RR&D committee with an 11 to 10 vote. It still needs to pass the House and Senate. The Governor is expect to sign if it gets that far. The RR&D committee was considered the toughest hurdle. A statewide voter poll shows 66% in favor and 22% apposed to HB162.

11-29-2005, 07:08 PM	#2
Lakewinniboater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Westford, MA and Alton Bay, NH Posts: 225 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	facts are not quite accurate (please close thread) Yes it is going to the House..... the rest of the data stated.... more than a bit stretched. __________________ Wendy "Wasn't Me!"

11-29-2005, 08:37 PM	#4
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Political action committees work The PAC solicited money, bought news coverage, and used fear to "educate" the voters. Advertising works. Money buys opinion. That doesn't make it right. __________________ -lg

11-30-2005, 09:52 AM	#9
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Nothing like a good poll with the right questions, you can get people to favor banning anything. http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

11-30-2005, 10:33 AM	#10
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	Isn't dihydrogen monoxide more commonly know as H2o or WATER __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

11-29-2005, 07:14 PM	#3
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Stretched where? http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

11-30-2005, 11:03 AM	#12
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Yup... its water!! LOL! Pretty funny website. Polling all depends on how you phrase the question. I think the speed limit debate is getting very old and tiresome. This issue has just divided the lake, and no matter what way the legislature votes, there will be alot of unhappy people, that would otherwise get along with one another just fine. Its not about safety or facts or statistics. HB-162 is about fear, plain and simple. Anybody who thinks otherwise should talk to Rep. Pilliod. I have a message left on my answering machine from Rep. Pilliod where he unequivocally states that HB-162 is not about safety, but is about fear. (I will try to get it converted to an .mp3 format so everyone can listen to it) If Don will let me, I will post it here, but if not, I totally understand his position. Woodsy

11-30-2005, 05:29 PM	#15
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I didn't start this thread. At least I don't think I did. I posted a response to the question by Phantom in the other HB162 thread. I don't understand how my post started a new thread but it's probably just a computer glitch. I hope the division this topic has caused will soon heal. The voters of NH may not understand the issue and they may have been led in one direction. However that's politics, it happens every day. And in the end it is the people of NH that own Lake Winnipesaukee.

11-30-2005, 06:38 PM	#17
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	...remember Gov Benson If HB 162 makes it all the way to Gov Lynch's desk for his signature, I am 75% certain that he will sign it into law. If Gov Benson were still the Governor, I'd be about 75% certain that Gov Benson would veto it. I can remember the Benson for Gov sign up on the big sign board at Lakeport Landing Marina. Yes, last Governor's election was a very close race. And, getting this law passed will not be easy.

11-30-2005, 09:26 PM	#18
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	I was talking to a gentleman from Lake George.He informed me not to worry about the speed limit.At lake George,it is business as usual.Unless you are blatantly breaking the speed limit close to shore, you can cruise well above the posted limit. Not only is it very hard to enforce,most law enforcing officials dont see the validity of the law enough to make it a high enough priority.They would rather police more threatening situations that may arrise on the lake daily. P.s. Is it going to be like the highway? if the speed limit is 65, most police officers will not bother you if you are doing 75 or less. What do you think?

12-01-2005, 01:22 AM	#19
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Out on Route 93, I've seen a bright yellow Corvette get stopped while going about 70mph. A 32' go-fast hull with a bright color graphic design is not hard to see. Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun. Maybe, the Formula-Baja-Fountain-Donzi-Cigarette go-fasts will come out with a new Winnipesaukee-stealth-natural blend-low detection camoflage color and finish?

12-01-2005, 10:59 AM	#22
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	I pretty much cruise at 45 most of the time anyway. If I am doing 50-55, I do not think it would much of a problem.I will save the high speed runs for the broads during the middle of the week.Common sense and a respect for your fellow boater is what I will strive for.

12-01-2005, 11:30 AM	#23
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Stealth Fatlazyless hit it on the nail. It is the reflective property of the surface. That is why the stealth fighter and bomber is designed the way it is. The bow of the boat has a lot less reflective property than the sides. So a boat is very stealthy head on, unless you have a flat windshield that is vertical with the horizon. Many Engineers from high tech companies have all the facts to throw out any radar convictions except for the obvious, like 25 mph over the speed limits. Many of my law enforcements friends says, as long as you are under 10 mph over the speed limit and the conditions are reasonable and prudent, chances of being pulled over is very slim. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

12-01-2005, 11:42 AM	#24
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	MP Director Barrett has said he will do what the legislature tells him to do. If we get a speed limit, there will be enforcement. I have no doubt about it. Will the tickets be beatable? In most cases, probablyin some cases not. I am guessing over time Winni will become like Lake George, in that for the most part, a ticket won't be issued unless your a complete bonehead. Will the speed enforcement change anything? Not really. Some, will still lack courtesy and education, still violate the 150' rule, and still generally not care at all. You cannot legislate courtesy and good judgement. Woodsy

12-01-2005, 11:53 AM	#25
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Transcript of Rep. Pilliods Message I have posted the transcript of the message left by Rep Pilliod below. For the record, I have the utmost respect for Rep. Pilliod. He left this message in response to an e-mail I sent him expressing my opposition to HB-162. If anyone wishes, I can post that e-mail here as well. I will try to get the message converted to an MP3 or WAV file over the weekend so you can hear it "from him" so to speak. It was pretty eye opening as to the "real" reasons behind HB-162. "Hi Mr. Wood, This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-**, 524-**. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… " (that is when the answering machine cut him off) Reading the text, doesn't really give you a sense of the voice inflections, I will try to get it converted. Form your own opinion as to what HB-162 is really about. Woodsy

12-01-2005, 12:27 PM	#27
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	law of unintended consequences The motives of the HB162 supporters has always been very clear, and I don't want to beat that horse. But if you read this article: http://www.cabinet.com/headlines/200...1.24.05-2.html You will see that auto speed limits are now a big revenue source. I'm sure 50-60 years ago the laws were enacted mainly for safety, and only the dangerous offenders were ticketed. As we all know now, there is almost no relationship between the dangerousness of the offense and the fine. So I'm sure the legislators will eventually realize that there's money to be made in boat speeding fines. And so will the insurance companies. Just like with autos, insurance rates will increase with tickets and insurance companies will start giving safety grants so the MP can buy radar guns. The legislator may even link boat speeding tickets with your auto driving record, they already do for DUI/BUI.

12-01-2005, 03:19 PM	#29
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Three cheers for Rep Jim Pilliod of Belmont and his understanding of the 'fear factor' when sharing the lake w/ the go-fasts. As someone who likes to cruise all over the big lake in an old Starcraft aluminum 18'er than gets up on plane at about 18 mph, I am all too familiar with the Winnipesaukee fear factor. Sharing the waters with much larger, faster, heavier, and thundering go-fasts is no picnic. A 45mph day /25mph night speed limit that is linked to your automobile driving record is definately a good thing. Out on the waters, 45mph is hardly a slow speed. And, a big thankyou to Rep Jim Pilliod.

12-01-2005, 03:51 PM	#30
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	Rep Pilliod and 162 is a disgrace. Laws should be passed on fact,not unfounded fear from the minority. If anything should scare you in your smaller boat, it is the cabin cruisers throwing the 6 foot wake! Are you going to try and outlaw them next? I understand your right to feel safe, but targeting a relatively small group of boats is not the answer. Just like a go-fast cannot go fast all the time, maybe there are times that you should not go out in your 18 footer.

12-01-2005, 04:07 PM	#31
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Gee whiz...I like those 24 to 48' cruisers that cruise along at 12 - 24 mph with their displacement hulls and their large wakes. Makes for a little challenge while out boating and sailing on the big lake. And don't forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat out on the big lake!

12-01-2005, 04:35 PM	#33
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Rep Piliod Well Fatlazyless, Rep. Pilliod is going to target those boats next. He had told a number of us, email, voice mail and otherwise, that those boats belong on the ocean. I guess you will have to take up another sport that will get your adrenalin going. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

12-01-2005, 05:09 PM	#34
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	Woodsy, Sorry for being slightly harsh on Rep.Pilliod. While he may be an asset to the local government, you cannot tell by the way and why he sponsered 162. While I admitt I dont know his track record on general issues, I cannot support nor trust an individual in his position that would generate a law that is not based on fact,but based on a small group that has used scare tactics to grow to their current size.Instead, I would expect someone in his position to look at the real facts,talk to the Marine Patrol and then draw his own non-biased conclusions as to whether a law is neccessary or not. Generating laws that take away any of our freedoms should be dealt with a little less on emotion and more on fact.

12-01-2005, 05:19 PM	#35
chase1 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 53 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It is often said that 45 is not slow when refering to HB162. I agree that 45 is not slow for some boats but how can one say that any boat traveling over 45 is unsafe. There is no evidence of it...... just "fear". I remember being afraid of going to school on the first day......I cried, and my mom made me go! My first time merging onto the highway was no picnic....I currently drive 45,000 miles a year. Boating in NH is a very safe activity and Statistics show that. Anyone afraid of boating on the lake must live a sheltered life. The USCG Boating Statistics report for 2004 shows that there were a total of 35 boating accidents within the entire state resulting in two fatalities. Even with an increase in boater registrations (sadly not the case for many states) boating accidents and fatalities have continued to fall from year to year which proves current programs are effective and accommodating growth. All this energy over 35 accidents and two fatalities with no proof that the speed limit will make a difference. If anything, statistical data shows that there will be no measurable effect. Yes, I can not argue the standard reply "one live is worth saving" but....What could we accomplish if we actually put the same effort and funding into a real problem. Go boating in what ever you have and be happy you can. Chase1

12-01-2005, 05:22 PM	#36
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	Woodsy I think fear is a good reason for a speed limit. There is the fear a camp director has in sending children out in small boats. Or the child that can't play in the water because their parents are afraid of the traffic and speed. Or the islander that can't get to the mainland on a weekend. Fear of accident or death is a very valid reason to enact legislation. Especially when those fears are reasonable, as they are here.

12-01-2005, 06:44 PM	#41
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	Mee n Mac, I didn,t think that "not being plugged in" was that offensive.I find alot of questionable comments on here that just do not make sense. However, for the good of the forum,I will tone it down and chill out.

12-01-2005, 07:04 PM	#42
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	pm203 If a camp is in Alton Bay for instance, where is the nearest quiet cove? How do the children in sail boats, canoes and row boats get from the camp to the quiet cove without traveling through heavy traffic? How many miles can a 7 year old row a boat to this cove? Many years ago I was the director of a New Hampshire children's camp, thankfully not on Winni. Many times I watched helplessly from shore when speed boats came near my campers. When you live on a point on Winni, like I do, you can get very nervous when swimmers are in the water. I dislike swimming out further than the end of my dock. I have neighbors on Bear Island that do not go out in their boats on weekends. I guarantee you this is for real. Just like some people will not drive through Boston during rush hour.

12-01-2005, 07:35 PM	#45
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	I read an article recently that indicated many of the the reps are in favor of amending HB162 by removing the 45 & 25 numbers & changing it to what ever speed is reasonable for the specific situation. If that happens it will take the meat out of the law & those who want to go 60, 70, 80 in the Broads or larger bays will be free to do so. Thats the way it should be. So high performance owners don't fret.

12-01-2005, 07:37 PM	#46
pm203 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 225 Thanks: 41 Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts	Common sense will always be common sense.If someone is driving to endanger,citate!

12-01-2005, 07:51 PM	#47
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,788 Thanks: 2,085 Thanked 742 Times in 532 Posts	Fer Sale Ah'm sellin' this here Bass Boat. Nuthin' wrong with it. Jes' takin' bestest offer. Yuh unnerstan', Ah ain't afeered of nuthin' on Winnipesaukee. Have Ah got the rite forum? Attached Images

12-01-2005, 10:49 PM	#50
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	Aps Acres per Second. Sounds like you are very contrdictory. Naming yourself 'Acres per second' when you have to go faster than 45 mph to cover an acre per second! __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

12-01-2005, 10:50 PM	#51
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Don... Thanks for what seems like our own little place to debate this hot button topic. It will be nice to debate how to turn lemons into lemonade. Mee & Mac... well said! I think that everyones opinion should be treated with respect. Both sides of the issue have some very valid points, they just disagree albiet strongly about how to go about it. All sides need to keep the name calling to themselves. PM203... didn't mean to dump on you, but you got the hint. Bear Islander... Fear is never a good reason for legislation that limits an individuals personal freedom. It should be that absolute last resort after all else has failed. I would be careful swimming off your dock as well, especially considering the picture you posted of your own boat driving by it, approximately 4' away, while on plane! Probably traveling at about 25 MPH or so? I also understand that some people don't want to take thier boats out on the weekends because they are afraid. The real question is, afraid of what exactly? Getting hit by a Performance Boat? Or just getting hit by a boat in general? Is it because they have a small boat? Be honest, they are concerned about being hit in general. I doubt boat size matters all that much as long as it is bigger than thier boat. Your little slice of the lake is extremely busy and rough on weekends. A speed limit is going to do nothing to alleviate those conditions. Its also going to do nothing when a noisy boat idles thru the NWZ by the Post Office at 3am, and gets back on plane just past your house either. A Camp Director should be VERY concerned about ANY powerboats near children that are traveling at ANY speed. That being said, it is his responsibility to make sure the children are safe and after hearing one of them speak, I am sure its a charge they don't take lightly. There are many ways that will help to improve the safety of the children yet not restrict another individuals personal freedom. All of the kids on the water in kayaks or canoes should be in brightly safety orange painted boats with bright orange lifejackets. Perhaps putting in a string of NWZ marker bouys 150' off the camp? I don't think the MP would balk, and certainly I think most, if not all boaters would be for it. Perhaps even help pay for them. The busiest times for boating are friday afternoon until sunday afternoon. The kids are usually at the camps for a week or two at a time. They could limit thier excursions beyond the 150' safety mark to the 4.5 days of the week when the lake isn't busy. They could/should have a larger motorboat idling with the kids as they paddle or sail beyond the 150' safety zone, perhaps flying a big orange flag. Sailboats should be highly visible just because of thier sails, but safety orange sails would be a good thing. Kids who want to go swimming beyond the swim markers should be required to wear a bright orange PFD and not be allowed to venture beyond the proposed 150' NWZ markers. This proposal doesn't infringe on the kids freedom right to enjoy the lake, nor the boaters freedom. It actually makes for a much safer environment for the kids. APS... Pix can be decieving as all of the boats are pretty much in the same spot. because of this it is very difficult to judge the actual distance between the boats. You can't really judge speed in the pic either. Assuming your pic is correct, I think that education will help to solve thew 150' violation. EVERYBODY should be REQUIRED to have a SAFE BOATERS CERTIFICATE! NO EXCEPTIONS! My personal freedom should not be infringed upon because a marina owner wants to rent an 1800lb boat for $200/hr to someone who has a credit card with room for a $2500 damage claim, yet posesses no working knowledge of the rules & regulations except for a 20 question quiz and no experience with boat handling! I think if we restricted boat rentals to those who people who posses a Safe Boaters Certificate, tour companies like the Winni Water Taxi would be a viable, thriving yet safe business. Woodsy

12-02-2005, 09:21 AM	#54
krwxcr700 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Where & when was that Pic taken? It looks like my boat. If it was on July 30, 2005 outside of Winter Harbor it is me. The Marine Patrol came by for 1/2 an hour and those boats didn't buzz me at that point but as soon as the MP left it was back to the way the picture is.

12-02-2005, 11:43 AM	#56
winnilaker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	NH roads already have this law (Reasonable and Prudent) http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...oc/nhspeed.pdf http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm Commisioner Sweeney (Dept of Safety) testified to the R, R & D to his successful convictions using this law. You might find this interesting, but you can use this law to fight a speeding ticket if you can prove that given the conditions you were driving reasonable and prudent, regardless of the posted speed limit. (This is how Commisioner Sweeney explained it to the committee, not me) For example: a performace car on rt106 traveling at 65 mph and no traffic may be perfectly reasonable and prudent. It can handle and stop better than a minivan and there were no other cars on the road. Keep this in mind with your next speeding ticket.

12-02-2005, 11:51 AM	#57
winnilaker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	One more point to highlight this statement in that document "III. Based on engineering and traffic investigations, a local government may increase or decrease prima facie speed limits within their jurisdictions.4 '265:63, I & II" Do we have the facts to support "engineering and traffic investigations" which shows 45 mph day and 25 night are the right limits? Or is Pilliod's response that "45 is plenty fast enough to enjoy boating" good enough for law?

12-02-2005, 12:17 PM	#58
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	two things First we already have this NH law for boating: 270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This is a misdemeanor, which is much worse than a speeding violation. Second, getting out of an auto ticket, where you are doing above the posted limit is very tough. In 265:60 you'll find "...any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful..." then a list of limits. If the posted limits are less than these limits and the local jurisdiction doesn't have the engineering studies to back it up, then you should be able to get off. But that's a very narrow exception.

12-02-2005, 03:01 PM	#62
chase1 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 53 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	If one is to use the argument that our lakes should be subject to a speed limit because we have speed limits on our roadways couldn't you use the same logic and say that we do not need speed limits on our roadways? Statistics show that more people die in automobiles every year and I am sure some people just are too afraid to drive. I know my grandmother won’t drive anymore because she is scared of those big loud tractor trailers that thunder by at such close range, and loud bikes make her jump. Just think of how much safer your kids would be when playing in the yard if all cars were 150 feet from your property line. Why don’t we get some rep to sponsor a bill that implements a safe passage law for our roadways and eliminates current speed limits. FAASS- Family Alliance for Auotmobile Safety and Stuff Sorry if anyone is offended but I just do not get any of the reasons stated for this proposed law. If the majority of the population (NH Residents) were uneducated (regarding current safety statistics, laws and experience operating a marine vessels within states inland waterways ) will a democracy yield the best results for government actions. Chase1