Hb 224

KonaChick · 03-22-2009, 10:41 AM

HB 224: Requires anyone going out past a swim line or more than 150' from shore has to wear a colored swim cap or be accompanied by a boat that displays a simmer's flag. "This allow boaters to see and identify swimmers in open water," wrote DEMOCRATIC PAUL INGERSOLL who suggested a red cap be worn by the swimmer, although the color and form would be left up to the agency rulemaking. Sunapee DEMOCRATIC REP. SUZANNE GOTTLING sponsored the bill. The House Transportation Committee unimanously endorsed it, although the committee reduced it from applying on all lakes in the state. The mandate would only apply to the state's largest water bodies: lakes Newfound, Ossipee, Squam, Sunapee, WINNIPESAUKEE and Winnisquam.

I will be on my dock selling red swim caps for $50 a cap to any interested parties. WHO elected these people?!?!?

no-engine · 03-22-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

WHO elected these people?!?!?

Such unenforceable possibilities!

fatlazyless · 03-22-2009, 11:05 AM

Doesn't NH have a 150', safe passage rule, where boaters need to slow to 6mph. On Winnipesaukee it has always been pretty safe to swim out to the spar markers because of the real threat of underwater rocks to motor boats. Out beyond the spar markers a swimmer could maybe get hit but probably not.

So, just wondering, when was the last time anyone swam out to a red & white or black & white spar marker?

KonaChick · 03-22-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Doesn't NH have a 150', safe passage rule, where boaters need to slow to 6mph. On Winnipesaukee it has always been pretty safe to swim out to the spar markers because of the real threat of underwater rocks to motor boats. Out beyond the spar markers a swimmer could maybe get hit but probably not.

So, just wondering, when was the last time anyone swam out to a red & white or black & white spar marker?

We do it all the time. It's a great workout to swim to the black marker, hang out on the rocks a bit and come back.

jeffk · 03-22-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

... So, just wondering, when was the last time anyone swam out to a red & white or black & white spar marker?

My wife does it all the time and takes the dog along with her.

phoenix · 03-22-2009, 02:07 PM

what color hat will the dog have to wear

Irish mist · 03-22-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix

what color hat will the dog have to wear

LOL, that will be in the next bill coming out of Concord.
________
Mazda premacy and mazda5 specifications

Pineedles · 03-22-2009, 05:50 PM

I would love to help defeat this bill but I am not a voter and no rep or sen will pay attention to me.

jrc · 03-22-2009, 06:07 PM

Isn't this stuff about ten days early?

tis · 03-22-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

HB 224: WHO elected these people?!?!?

I agree! If they would all just stay home and do nothing we would be much better off. It is getting so that I cringe when they are in sesson. They obviously don't have enough important stuff to do since they keep coming up with all these stupid laws.

hazelnut · 03-22-2009, 07:27 PM

OH MY GOD!!!! Who are these IDIOTS in the legislature????? I really used to envy New Hampshire and the lack of stupidity in government. Now it seems like every day some idiot lawmaker comes up with another LAW to fix a problem that does not exist. SERIOUSLY?!?! Am I missing something? When was the last boat/swimmer fatality on our lakes? Even if there was ONE do we need a law? This is a disgusting waste of time in the face of economic crisis. WOW!

Rinkerfam · 03-22-2009, 08:22 PM

I can't believe that people don't understand that government is there to protect us from ourselves

Pandora's box is wide open folks. It's only a matter of time before a house bill surfaces telling us how many squares we can use in the public facilities around the lake

Waterbaby · 03-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

HB 224: Requires anyone going out past a swim line or more than 150' from shore has to wear a colored swim cap or be accompanied by a boat that displays a simmer's flag. "This allow boaters to see and identify swimmers in open water," wrote DEMOCRATIC PAUL INGERSOLL who suggested a red cap be worn by the swimmer, although the color and form would be left up to the agency rulemaking. Sunapee DEMOCRATIC REP. SUZANNE GOTTLING sponsored the bill. The House Transportation Committee unimanously endorsed it, although the committee reduced it from applying on all lakes in the state. The mandate would only apply to the state's largest water bodies: lakes Newfound, Ossipee, Squam, Sunapee, WINNIPESAUKEE and Winnisquam.

I will be on my dock selling red swim caps for $50 a cap to any interested parties. WHO elected these people?!?!?

Well, I sure didn't vote for any of them.......... but anyway, my first question would be "When was the last time a swimmer was hit by a boat". I sure do think they'd be better off figuring out how to fix the deficit in NH than coming up with these absurd, unenforceable laws.......

WeirsBeachBoater · 03-22-2009, 08:24 PM

I am sitting here LOL. This is just another bill, that goes along with the past issue we can't talk about..... Pretty soon, the lake will be so beautiful with All the wildlife and no people on it. Remember, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Resident 2B · 03-22-2009, 08:59 PM

I think it is about time that the native folks from New Hampshire started to think about the potential impact of all these really stupid new laws, including the "unspeakable new law". If the result of these stupid new laws was a significant drop in the desire of out-of-state property owners to own waterfront property in New Hampshire, what would the impact be? That is an important question!

If this happened, I believe there would be a significant shift in tax burden from the out-of-state property owners to the New Hampshire property owners not living on the water. This would be the result of a huge fall in lake front property values driving a huge shift in tax burden back to those not living on the water front.

I am a water front owner, so I wold be impacted through a huge loss of property value. I can also vote now, oh boy!! However, the BIGGER issue is the impact on non-water front residents through a major shift in tax burden.

The folks in public office are getting more dangerous every year with their "error-on-the-side-of-safety" thinking. My point is, this 'safe-side-thinking" potentially impacts all New Hampshire residents, not just those that use the lake or own property on the lakes.

It is time to do some very important thinking!

R2B

This'nThat · 03-22-2009, 09:03 PM

Democrats = nannys, who need to control every aspect of our lives because, obviously, we are simply too stupid to know what's good for us. These nannys take our money because they know best how to spend it; define marriage for us because our millinea-old civilization never got it right in the first place; explain to us how much safer it would be if none of us owned any guns -- just trust them to coddle the criminals because society has done the criminals wrong; and now tells us what to wear while swimming. I'm sure the next step will be to force all swimmers to swim with life vests on, or only in waste-deep water, for safety sake.

Question: How will this law be enforced? Will the MP be required to pull the swimmer over and ask him to produce his ID and swimming license? Will violations be reported to the DMV? If this is a repeat violation, will the swimmer be towed to shore and handcuffed to the pier? Will there be a public recounting in the Citizen's police log, and willl the trial dates be announced? If none of this has been thought out yet, then there's plenty of meddling yet for Democrats over the next few months.

jeffk · 03-22-2009, 09:56 PM

Are the MPs going to hand out waterproof tickets so I can tuck it into my swimsuit?

ApS · 03-23-2009, 06:53 AM

This is an incredibly stupid proposal: every swimmer can hear an approaching powerboat. That said, I have seen the MPs direct kids on inner tubes—a much larger target—to get closer to the safety of shore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by This'nThat

"...I'm sure the next step will be to force all swimmers to swim with life vests on, or only in waste-deep water, for safety sake..."

You'll have to go to a more southerly New England state to find waste-deep water!

tis · 03-23-2009, 07:19 AM

It is time to do more than some very important THINKING. But the best we can do is let them know how much we hate all their nanny legislation. But it is very discouraging because for every one of us who want to be responsible for ourselves and our own property, there are some who think the new laws will protect them. (Take the cspa for example and the unmentionable subject -look at all those who truly believe it is to protect our lake.) I am not sure which group outnumbers the other any more.

no-engine · 03-23-2009, 07:35 AM

Why not forward all your posts to the legislature? What good only here?

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 09:26 AM

So let me see if I understand this...

If I want to stop the boat on a hot summer day and I'm in the broads I have to put on a swin capp?? In these difficult economic times I think the legislature would have more important work!

KonaChick · 03-23-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

So let me see if I understand this...

If I want to stop the boat on a hot summer day and I'm in the broads I have to put on a swin capp?? In these difficult economic times I think the legislature would have more important work!

Lakewinn if I understand it correctly if you want to stop your boat on the broads and swim your boat has to have a "swimmers flag" visible. You only have to wear a red swim cap if you're 150' or more from shore or past swim lines, no boat.

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 10:04 AM

Thanks for the clarity.... still ridiculous

Pineedles · 03-23-2009, 10:13 AM

I just wrote Suzanne Gottling an email. Whether she bothers to go to this site, which I invited her to do, to see how people feel about the bill or not is anyone's guess. But here is the link to her page in the legislature. Write to her and tell her to look at how peopel feel about this insane bill.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...?member=376780

KonaChick · 03-23-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I just wrote Suzanne Gottling an email. Whether she bothers to go to this site, which I invited her to do, to see how people feel about the bill or not is anyone's guess. But here is the link to her page in the legislature. Write to her and tell her to look at how peopel feel about this insane bill.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...?member=376780

I just sent off my email. Let's all band together and have our voices heard. Have you sent your email today??

thanks Pineedles!!

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 11:27 AM

Just sent off my email, not sure if I will get a reply but I recommend we share Suzanne's response if they are forthcoming....

This'nThat · 03-23-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'll have to go to a more southerly New England state to find waste-deep water!

Ok, ok. I'll keep an eye on my wastefull comments in the future, and make sure I exercise proper waist management.

Gearhead · 03-23-2009, 11:48 AM

Perhaps we should only be allowed to swim when a lifeguard is on duty, and only when we have our USCG approved waterproof "Swimming Certificates" affixed to our red caps like fishing licenses.

She must carpool with Rep. Judith Day.

nicole · 03-23-2009, 12:03 PM

Wow-what a ridiculous bill. I cannot believe the out of control nanny state tax and spenders in Concord. I did not vote for any of them and I actually volunteered my time, energy and $$ to undo the elction of 2006 but unfortunately these people won again in 2008. It is something I don't understand.

I continually call and email my reps-on all levels- about numerous issues. I find it amazing that my reps never reply to my E-mails or letters-well at least the local and state reps. I think the governor has replied to maybe 2 of my letters and they were form letters. I do hear back from those federal officials that I write-some always get back and others seldom do.

I hope the people of our great state will return common sense to the NH state house in 2010.

If someone actually has a state rep( not federal level) that actually replies to E-mails and gets back to them, I would love to hear about it.

I have sent E-mails off to the author of this bill as well as my state sen and 4 house reps.

I am wondering if we should all send E-mails to WMUR about this. Does their site have an area to do so. Perhaps if they receive many E-mails they will run a piece on it and it will get the word out.

Nicole

Excalibur · 03-23-2009, 12:24 PM

I have a dive flag and respect them as should everyone. As a diver I always check my surroundings. Being underwater in smith cove on a weekend probably comes close to the noise underwater of a u-boat being chased by the fleet in WW II. With that being said, I always surface by climbing up my boats anchor line. But if I swam out from shore and just had a dive flag, that's when the rule makes sense. I wouldn't have a vessel to protect me, but I am underwater and can not be seen, except fo my bubbles and I may pop up at any time. I believe this rule holds true for a snorkeler who may dive every so often. They should actually have a dive flag, but rarely enforced because its hard too.

It may not be a bad idea for the boats out floating to say tell they have swimmers in the water. But I think majority of the people who swim off there boats stay quite close. Plus there is the 150 ft rule and I think you need to have some vision to operate a vessel. So is another law really needed ??

I can imagine going by brawn bay and seeing all those, "swimmer flags", flying. To tell the incoherent passerby that people may be in the water swimming. I guess the NH legislator came from the retiring MA legislators. I think we need a underground highway to make it easier to get thru Manchester.

hazelnut · 03-23-2009, 01:18 PM

I'm still waiting for the "Sunblock Bill." You know it is coming!!! A law making sunblock wearing mandatory on sunny days.

Seriously we are in economic crisis and all this ninny can do is come up with a swimming law????? Who voted for her? Is she sane?

no-engine · 03-23-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicole

Wow-what a ridiculous bill. I cannot believe the out of control nanny state tax and spenders in Concord. I did not vote for any of them and I actually volunteered my time, energy and $$ to undo the elction of 2006 but unfortunately these people won again in 2008. It is something I don't understand.

I continually call and email my reps-on all levels- about numerous issues. I find it amazing that my reps never reply to my E-mails or letters-well at least the local and state reps. I think the governor has replied to maybe 2 of my letters and they were form letters. I do hear back from those federal officials that I write-some always get back and others seldom do.

I hope the people of our great state will return common sense to the NH state house in 2010.

If someone actually has a state rep( not federal level) that actually replies to E-mails and gets back to them, I would love to hear about it.

I have sent E-mails off to the author of this bill as well as my state sen and 4 house reps.

I am wondering if we should all send E-mails to WMUR about this. Does their site have an area to do so. Perhaps if they receive many E-mails they will run a piece on it and it will get the word out.

Nicole

Guess I am so very lucky. I emailed something to Governor's office and then virtually same message to Councilor Burton. Councilor replied to my email about 2 days later. An employee in Governor's office called me last week, which was about a month after the email. Not as timely, but encouraging to know someone is thinking.....

For those that are unaware, the Council I think is six people who meet with the Governor about every other week, open to public. State's website can explain better than I can. You can find who represents one's area on the website. Which congressman, which senator, and which councilor.

Go for it.

BroadHopper · 03-23-2009, 04:25 PM

Swimming laws. It is getting bad enough with all the Democrats not worrying about where the money is coming from to pay for enforcements during economics times.

codeman671 · 03-23-2009, 05:01 PM

I will probably get flamed for saying this, but there are times that this law DOES make sense. For instance in front of my place on Mark, it is a pretty busy thru-way on the weekends. If someone ventures out 150'+ from shore they are in serious danger of getting run over. Many boats each day cut the corner too tight and even infringe on 150' which makes even being 100-125' out dangerous. This clearly puts people at risk there, if they travel beyond 150' from shore they are goners...I have had boats inside my moorings which are 90' from shore! We don't allow anyone to swim more than 20' past our swim raft.

Of course the enforceability of it (ticketing swimmers for instance) is idiotic but I can think of other unenforceable/stupid laws on the books that are in place.

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 05:19 PM

Just received A response from Rep. Gottling . I inquired on why dosen't the legislature focus on more critical issues like the economy...

Her response (while acknowledging we have economic issues ) was to explain the merits of the bill and how / who chose the cap colors. She indicated that the Marine Patrol was initially concerned .....but felt they had a presence already on the six lakes included in the amendment so they would be able to work with this bill.

What are these representatives thinking???? At least she sent me a "response".

SteveA · 03-23-2009, 06:25 PM

Might as well require that the red cap includes a built in GPS device so fines could be assigned remotely.

While we're at it, let's require red caps onboard all boats incase anyone falls off a boat more than 150' from shore.
Waterskiers must also wear red caps at all times, incase they dump more than 150' from shore.

I seem to remember a 2am swim that envolved a red boa? Would the boa count as a cap?

Even a good, card carrying screaming liberal like me, thinks this is just plain STUPID.

YES WE CAN... as long as you have a Red Cap on.

Forest Gump's, Mom said.. "Stupid is as Stupid does" I never understood that.. until now.

Silver Duck · 03-23-2009, 07:01 PM

....is the official, State of NH (or maybe state of insanity)

Swimmer's Safety Helmet.

This will be a bright red bicycle helmet with a gimbel-mounted flag pole for displaying a swimmer flag (or the snap on accessory strobe light for night swimming), a built in EPIRB to summon help if needed, and an inflatable bouyancy collar in case you get exhausted by dragging all that crap around!

Mandatory, available only from the State of NH, and a bargain at only $149.99! (Hey, revenue enhancement rules!

)

Silver Duck

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 07:40 PM

Good one Silver Duck! Love the revnue enhancement opportunity.. Can't wait to see the next piece of "meaningful legislation"

secondcurve · 03-23-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I will probably get flamed for saying this, but there are times that this law DOES make sense. For instance in front of my place on Mark, it is a pretty busy thru-way on the weekends. If someone ventures out 150'+ from shore they are in serious danger of getting run over. Many boats each day cut the corner too tight and even infringe on 150' which makes even being 100-125' out dangerous. This clearly puts people at risk there, if they travel beyond 150' from shore they are goners...I have had boats inside my moorings which are 90' from shore! We don't allow anyone to swim more than 20' past our swim raft.

Of course the enforceability of it (ticketing swimmers for instance) is idiotic but I can think of other unenforceable/stupid laws on the books that are in place.

Codeman:

I'm not being critical of you, but think of it this way. If someone is stupid enough to swim in an area where there is heavy boat traffic, don't they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool? Would a bright red cap really make such a stupid act okay?

This'nThat · 03-23-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Just received A response from Rep. Gottling . I inquired on why dosen't the legislature focus on more critical issues like the economy...

Her response (while acknowledging we have economic issues ) was to explain the merits of the bill and how / who chose the cap colors. She indicated that the Marine Patrol was initially concerned .....but felt they had a presence already on the six lakes included in the amendment so they would be able to work with this bill.

What are these representatives thinking???? At least she sent me a "response".

That was a typical response from a Democrat "representative". I receive exactly the same type of responses from Carol Shea-Porter. Don't forget, we are the stupid ones who don't understand or appreciate the care that nanny's provide to us. And, therefore, our voices don't count. It's all about power, money, and "we're gonna do it my way" to these people, not common sense or decent laws.

Mee-n-Mac · 03-23-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I am sitting here LOL. This is just another bill, that goes along with the past issue we can't talk about..... Pretty soon, the lake will be so beautiful with All the wildlife and no people on it. Remember, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

I for one think this proposal is consistent with ... well .... that other thing. I mean if kayaks can get cut in half then what does that say about the poor swimmer's chances ? I think they haven't gone far enough. If you're swimming at night you must display a white all around beacon, visible for 2 miles. If we require it of boaters why not swimmers ? Getting back to the daytime issue ... what with all the drunk, crazed boaters I've heard about and how the 150' rule is useless, I'm not sure anyone should be allowed to swim out past 150' ... or even 50' ... or at all. Perhaps if people had a personal water jet spout, like some of the PWCs have, then it might be OK. Perhaps they'd be seen but imagine a boat going 44.9 MPH in 3ft waves and with the blinding Sun's glare in their windblown watery redshot eyes. Will these boaters even see that red or yellow or dayglow green cap ?????????????

Sure, sure this swimming thing was fun in it's time but time has moved on and we must also. Safety is the only thing that matters now*. Even if we settle for this compromise bill (it still allows such "swimming") then the cap is just a small compromise that's needed for safety. Even if we haven't had someone runover on Winni, I'm sure I could Google someplace across the entire USA that has in the last 2 decades. And even if the cap isn't a guaranteed cure-all then certainly more visible is more saferer ! Why people are fighting this I'll just never understand. Why if I ever swam in the lake, I'd certainly wear such a cap !

I don't want to hear any mumbling on how this interferes with personal rights or freedoms or whatnot from the offshore swimmers. If the State can make you wear a bathing suit via law then they can make you wear a hi-visibility (w/optional white light) swimming cap ! If you want to swim that far offshore then the ocean is only some miles away !! Take your reckless, mindless "swimming" to someplace where I won't have to see it.

*And do we want the MP spending it's limited resources investigating accidents and filing charges and not to mention doing recovery efforts ? I don't think so. Let's be proactive and help them out !!!! It's not an added duty, it's less paperwork !

Irish mist · 03-23-2009, 08:54 PM

2010 can't come quick enough so I can cast a vote to help remove this crowd. It's been difficult watching this state go the way of all the other nanny states.
________
Honda vt600

Lakewinn1 · 03-23-2009, 09:22 PM

I'm just tired of the legislature initiating "feel good" / non enforcable legislation and not focusing on legislation that gets us out of current crisis.

It's disturbing that they refuse to see the bigger picture.

They are most likely well educated people who are not stupid but somehow are missing the basics and what's important to te average Joe.

Irish mist · 03-23-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

I'm just tired of the legislature initiating "feel good" / non enforcable legislation and not focusing on legislation that gets us out of current crisis.

It's disturbing that they refuse to see the bigger picture.

They are most likely well educated people who are not stupid but somehow are missing the basics and what's important to te average Joe.

I tend to think this crowd is a highly ideological, leftist group who want to change NH.....and have a plan to do it.
________
Subaru alcyone svx specifications

KonaChick · 03-23-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Just received A response from Rep. Gottling . I inquired on why dosen't the legislature focus on more critical issues like the economy...

Her response (while acknowledging we have economic issues ) was to explain the merits of the bill and how / who chose the cap colors. She indicated that the Marine Patrol was initially concerned .....but felt they had a presence already on the six lakes included in the amendment so they would be able to work with this bill.

What are these representatives thinking???? At least she sent me a "response".

So she' saying MP supports this bill basically. I'm going to be wearing a day- glo orange cap with a big middle finger...errrrr never mind.

Codeman I hope no one flames you for voicing your opinion. I just feel that personal responsibility is a thing of the past. No one is able to take responsibility for themselves or their actions anymore. One person does something stupid and the powers that be are running to enact some imbicilic law that will end up costing tax payers more money. It needs to end...

NightWing · 03-23-2009, 10:44 PM

They should focus on more important things, like banning any man with a waist of 42 inches or more, from wearing gold chains and a Speedo.

Woodsy · 03-24-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I for one think this proposal is consistent with ... well .... that other thing. I mean if kayaks can get cut in half then what does that say about the poor swimmer's chances ? I think they haven't gone far enough. If you're swimming at night you must display a white all around beacon, visible for 2 miles. If we require it of boaters why not swimmers ? Getting back to the daytime issue ... what with all the drunk, crazed boaters I've heard about and how the 150' rule is useless, I'm not sure anyone should be allowed to swim out past 150' ... or even 50' ... or at all. Perhaps if people had a personal water jet spout, like some of the PWCs have, then it might be OK. Perhaps they'd be seen but imagine a boat going 44.9 MPH in 3ft waves and with the blinding Sun's glare in their windblown watery redshot eyes. Will these boaters even see that red or yellow or dayglow green cap ?????????????

Sure, sure this swimming thing was fun in it's time but time has moved on and we must also. Safety is the only thing that matters now*. Even if we settle for this compromise bill (it still allows such "swimming") then the cap is just a small compromise that's needed for safety. Even if we haven't had someone runover on Winni, I'm sure I could Google someplace across the entire USA that has in the last 2 decades. And even if the cap isn't a guaranteed cure-all then certainly more visible is more saferer ! Why people are fighting this I'll just never understand. Why if I ever swam in the lake, I'd certainly wear such a cap !

I don't want to hear any mumbling on how this interferes with personal rights or freedoms or whatnot from the offshore swimmers. If the State can make you wear a bathing suit via law then they can make you wear a hi-visibility (w/optional white light) swimming cap ! If you want to swim that far offshore then the ocean is only some miles away !! Take your reckless, mindless "swimming" to someplace where I won't have to see it.

*And do we want the MP spending it's limited resources investigating accidents and filing charges and not to mention doing recovery efforts ? I don't think so. Let's be proactive and help them out !!!! It's not an added duty, it's less paperwork !

Well put!! Your freaking killing me!

jeffk · 03-24-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I will probably get flamed for saying this, but there are times that this law DOES make sense. For instance in front of my place on Mark, it is a pretty busy thru-way on the weekends. If someone ventures out 150'+ from shore they are in serious danger of getting run over. ...

I would agree that this makes sense.

That's why a responsible adult would either choose not to swim on the weekends or "GASP" buy their own colorful cap without the need of any government intervention whatsoever. Imagine that, citizens able to think for themselves and take responsible action without government direction.

It makes sense to brush my teeth, take a shower frequently, and flush the toilet as well. I'm waiting for the laws on all that.

And once all that is done laws will be made that take care of us in other not so common sense ways, like giving loans to people who can't afford them. Oops, already got that one.

We're so lucky our wise government is there to make sure we change our underwear.

codeman671 · 03-24-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Codeman:

I'm not being critical of you, but think of it this way. If someone is stupid enough to swim in an area where there is heavy boat traffic, don't they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool? Would a bright red cap really make such a stupid act okay?

150' from shore is not very far, especially in a reasonably shallow area. Let's face it, many boaters can't tell the difference between 100' and 150' as it is. I am not saying that I agree totally with the bill, but the overall logic of trying to keep swimmers safe is not bad.

I hardly think that my kids need to be eliminated from the gene pool if they accidently stray too far from the raft. No, I do not plan on putting red caps on their little heads. If someone is doing a channel swim and gets clipped on a busy weekend day I agree they had it coming, but you don't have to be in the middle of the lake to have it happen...

If there more stringent rules on 150' infringement, better enforcement, and hell maybe even a boaters driving test this would not even be proposed. I still find it ridiculous that there is no actual on-water competency test. Take a measly class (or none for those like me that got mine before) and hold a valid drivers license and you are cleared to take a 38' Sea Ray or similar monster anywhere you like... WTF?

upthesaukee · 03-24-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

We're so lucky our wise government is there to make sure we change our underwear.

Actually, I think I read an RSA that is very similar to an auto insurance RSA (the one that says you don't have to have insurance on your car to drive, but if you have an accident, you better have some.).

If I remember the RSA correctly, it said you don't have to have clean underwear on, but if you have an accident and don't have on clean underwear, you may receive a citation and thereafter be required to change your underwear daily.

As they say on those outsourced support lines, "please hold the line while I do further research."

SIKSUKR · 03-24-2009, 09:59 AM

I hope we all are feeling safer now. I know I'm not. I think this kind of legislation will actually put more people in danger by giving these "helpless" citizens a false sense of security so they believe they will now be safe in swimming anywhere in the lake alone. M&M has it spot on.

chipj29 · 03-24-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Perhaps if people had a personal water jet spout, like some of the PWCs have, then it might be OK.

If that were the case, then we would have to worry about how much noise these people were making!

Mee-n-Mac · 03-24-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

So she' saying MP supports this bill basically. I'm going to be wearing a day- glo orange cap with a big middle finger...errrrr never mind. ...

Don't think of the safety cap as being mandated, nooooo, think of it as an accessory. Why just imagine these beauties in day-glo colors. The heart almost skips a beat doesn't it !!

More visibler is more saferer !!

SIKSUKR · 03-24-2009, 12:38 PM

Hey,I own 2 of those M&M?Nobody is going to run me over in my shower!

gtxrider · 03-24-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Don't think of the safety cap as being mandated, nooooo, think of it as an accessory. Why just imagine these beauties in day-glo colors. The heart almost skips a beat doesn't it !!

More visibler is more saferer !!

I am old enough to remember ladies and even some bald headed men wearing bathing caps. The flowers used to come off the caps so I see a EPA issue due to those little rubber flowers floating around and the ducks eating them. We are not supposed to feed the ducks! Hey, what about the ducks and loons do they need orange caps?

We get the government we deserve!

lakeforest · 03-24-2009, 01:27 PM

What next! But if this bill passes, I suggest the head gear have red on one side and green on the other so the boats know which way the swimmer is headed!

KonaChick · 03-24-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Don't think of the safety cap as being mandated, nooooo, think of it as an accessory. Why just imagine these beauties in day-glo colors. The heart almost skips a beat doesn't it !!

More visibler is more saferer !!

I'm more afraid of what I'm going to hit while my attention is on these red caps!!!

Mee-n-Mac · 03-24-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Hey,I own 2 of those M&M?Nobody is going to run me over in my shower!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxrider

I am old enough to remember ladies and even some bald headed men wearing bathing caps. The flowers used to come off the caps so I see a EPA issue due to those little rubber flowers floating around and the ducks eating them. We are not supposed to feed the ducks! Hey, what about the ducks and loons do they need orange caps?

We get the government we deserve!

Your points is a good ones. Safe in shower is not safe in the big lake. Also I hear drowning has happened in big lake. I think we need to mandate these as well. Hi-vis anti-submerging vests are the way to go (assuming we can't ban swimming ... this year). Solving 2 problems with one solution is just another example of your more efficient government at work.

More visibler is more saferer. More floatering is even more saferer !

Misakame · 03-24-2009, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeforest

What next! But if this bill passes, I suggest the head gear have red on one side and green on the other so the boats know which way the swimmer is headed!

Good one Lakeforest - now we just have to figure out where to stick the anchor light!! LOL

nicole · 03-25-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

HB 224: Requires anyone going out past a swim line or more than 150' from shore has to wear a colored swim cap or be accompanied by a boat that displays a simmer's flag. "This allow boaters to see and identify swimmers in open water," wrote DEMOCRATIC PAUL INGERSOLL who suggested a red cap be worn by the swimmer, although the color and form would be left up to the agency rulemaking. Sunapee DEMOCRATIC REP. SUZANNE GOTTLING sponsored the bill. The House Transportation Committee unimanously endorsed it, although the committee reduced it from applying on all lakes in the state. The mandate would only apply to the state's largest water bodies: lakes Newfound, Ossipee, Squam, Sunapee, WINNIPESAUKEE and Winnisquam.

I will be on my dock selling red swim caps for $50 a cap to any interested parties. WHO elected these people?!?!?

KonaChick-you are famous!

The front page of The Citizen has an article about HB224 and they have your quote and they mention other discussions on this thread as well!
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...893/-1/CITIZEN

On winnipesaukee.com, one writer mused about being on her dock this year and selling red swim caps for $50 a piece. Several other writers opined that lawmakers should be spending their time on said economic crisis while one asked whether violators would be listed in The Citizen police blotter and have their court proceedings reported upon.

There was also a post from a writer who said that he has witnessed watercraft violate the proximity restrictions to the shore and other boats but he, too, expressed concerns about enforceability, noting, however, that there were other laws on the books with dubious enforceability.

Pineedles · 03-25-2009, 07:57 AM

Gottling is hopeful that HB224 will succeed, noting that it had bipartisan support in the Transportation Committee.

"To me it would be extremely disappointing if a 15-0 vote out of a committee would be voted down."

All this means Ms. Gottling is that there are 15 of you folks who don't deserve to be elected again!

Mee-n-Mac · 03-25-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Gottling is hopeful that HB224 will succeed, noting that it had bipartisan support in the Transportation Committee.

"To me it would be extremely disappointing if a 15-0 vote out of a committee would be voted down."

All this means Ms. Gottling is that there are 15 of you folks who don't deserve to be elected again!

Ms Gottling mentions a swim flag on a boat. I've never seen a swim flag but maybe we can borrow an idea from the scuba people. They have a dive flag, often towed about as they swim ... errr ... dive around underwater. So in addition to the hi-vis cap, the day-glo vest/PFD, I suggest that swimmers tow one of these around just to be sure. Of course we'd have the lettering changed but you get the idea. It would also be a great place to put the all-around pole w/white light (and battery) for night swimming. And think of the exercise benefits as well. Why it's your more efficient govt being efficienter again, tackling the pressing issue of swim safety and reducing our health care costs. Remember more visibler is more saferer !

Pineedles · 03-25-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I would love to help defeat this bill but I am not a voter and no rep or sen will pay attention to me.

I am quoting myself because it is really true! I got this back just a few minutes ago from the email I tried to send yesterday.

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: HB 224
Sent: 3/23/2009 11:11 AM

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

sgottling@comcast.net on 3/25/2009 11:14 AM
Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. Please retry or contact your administrator.

I guess Ms. Gottling doesn't like to like to publish her REAL email address on the gov't site. She might actually hear from some of her constituents.

Mee-n-Mac, love the idea of the float to drag around while I swim. However, right now I think an anchor backpack is more appropriate.

Lakegeezer · 03-25-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Ms Gottling mentions a swim flag on a boat. I've never seen a swim flag but maybe we can borrow an idea from the scuba people. They have a dive flag, often towed about as they swim ... errr ... dive around underwater. So in addition to the hi-vis cap, the day-glo vest/PFD, I suggest that swimmers tow one of these around just to be sure. Of course we'd have the lettering changed but you get the idea.

And for the more politically incorrectly minded, a slight moderation could express your opinion. Sorry, couldn't resist.

KonaChick · 03-25-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicole

[/B]

KonaChick-you are famous!

The front page of The Citizen has an article about HB224 and they have your quote and they mention other discussions on this thread as well!
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...893/-1/CITIZEN

On winnipesaukee.com, one writer mused about being on her dock this year and selling red swim caps for $50 a piece. Several other writers opined that lawmakers should be spending their time on said economic crisis while one asked whether violators would be listed in The Citizen police blotter and have their court proceedings reported upon.

There was also a post from a writer who said that he has witnessed watercraft violate the proximity restrictions to the shore and other boats but he, too, expressed concerns about enforceability, noting, however, that there were other laws on the books with dubious enforceability.

For an extra ten bucks I will include an autograph on your red swim cap!! So the truth comes out, Gottling lives on Lake Sunapee and apparently swimmers can be found swimming at a certain spot where boats come up to full speed. Why not use your energies to make that part of Lake Sunapee a "No Wake Zone" if it's such a huge problem?? Solve the problems in your own house before you stick your nose into mine. Perhaps pay more attention while you're boating! Because you have some issues with a spot on Lake Sunappee I now have to change my habits and lifestyle?? I know I'm stretching here but come on folks, like I said before when will this nonsense end? I will not get into a political debate (although I'd like to). It's just sillliness to spend time and energy on these totally inane, unenforcable laws. It's almost like it's going back to Puritan times. Have you ever seen some of the laws written back then? Stay tuned folks with the house and senate in it's current "state" this is just the beginning (oops, I said I would not get into a political debate).

AC2717 · 03-25-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

For an extra ten bucks I will include an autograph on your red swim cap!! So the truth comes out, Gottling lives on Lake Sunapee and apparently swimmers can be found swimming at a certain spot where boats come up to full speed. Why not use your energies to make that part of Lake Sunapee a "No Wake Zone" if it's such a huge problem?? Solve the problems in your own house before you stick your nose into mine. Perhaps pay more attention while you're boating! Because you have some issues with a spot on Lake Sunappee I now have to change my habits and lifestyle?? I know I'm stretching here but come on folks, like I said before when will this nonsense end? I will not get into a political debate (although I'd like to). It's just sillliness to spend time and energy on these totally inane, unenforcable laws. It's almost like it's going back to Puritan times. Have you ever seen some of the laws written back then? Stay tuned folks with the house and senate in it's current "state" this is just the beginning (oops, I said I would not get into a political debate).

You read my mind, but did it in a much shorter rant, thank you, or someoneshe knows did something stupid and now she is trying to protect eveyone from doing the stupid thing, makes me sick the way these people think, it is not the idiotic person's fault it is societies fault for thinking people should have common sense, can I takea stab out there and think she might also be a lawyer?

Lakewinn1 · 03-25-2009, 11:59 AM

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

chipj29 · 03-25-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

If you are skinny dipping, you should hang your bathing suit from the stern light.

hazelnut · 03-25-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

Yes I do:

The Flag that you are supposed to display is white with Black text on it. It should read:

If You Can Read This
You Broke The
150 Foot Law
And You Already
Ran Me Over Because
I Was Swimming.
Please Dial 911.
Thank You

Lakewinn1 · 03-25-2009, 05:07 PM

Love the craetivity.... but I really would like to know.

Skip · 03-25-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Love the craetivity.... but I really would like to know.

The bill leaves the type of cap or swimwear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swimwear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

Mee-n-Mac · 03-25-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The bill leaves the type of cap or swimwear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swimwear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

From the Citizen article mentioned previously ....

"People should be brightly colored" while in area lakes, said Stuart, who is a boater. "I hate driving a boat on the lake when I can't see swimmers clearly and I hope it (SB224) passes. This is important to have swimmers marked so that we can see them. I don't care if it's red or fluorescent yellow or a flag as long as they're marked."

OK, so say we compromise on safety and allow this offshore swimming to go on. Let's say people object to wearing hi-vis gear (as odd as that sounds). So it would seem Rep Stuart is offering up another solution. I know these marking devices come with day-glo marking material. I think the standoff distance allowed by their design will also prove to be of some utility. I think Rep Stuart's idea merits some discussion ! Remember more visibler is more saferer !!

Pineedles · 03-25-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The bill leaves the type of cap or swim wear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swim wear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

In short? In short? I think that saying "in short" is a way to calm folks who have have a problem with this stupid bill, and the short sighted politicians on the committee that voted for this bill! I think people want the government to deal with more important issues, than what freakin color swim cap that I WON'T WEAR. I think, "If the bill as proposed passes" then there will be a lot of civil and uncivil disobedience! I plan on being VERY UNCIVIL! I can't help it, I was born with the Founding Father's conception of Liberty in my blood.

Anyone want to join me? I suggest a massive "SWIM-OUT" at Ms. Gottling's Lake Sunapee site this summer! What a news article that would make! Ten, 20, 50 or more people swimming 151' off of Ms. Gottling's Lake Sunapee home getting arrested, not. What a picture for the Newspapers! Newspapers, heck, it would be a great video shot for NH and Associated Press cameras!

Sorry I can't get into the levity that some of you have interspersed into this thread. Normally, I would be laughing my butt off with some of the jokes and original thoughts that you-all have posted, but I can't help it, liberty is too important to me.

Skip · 03-26-2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

...In short? In short? I think that saying "in short" is a way to calm folks who have have a problem with this stupid bill...

Whoa Bucko...take a chill pill....

I was simply answering a pertinent question as to the mechanics of how the bill would be implemented if it is passed as proposed.

I have not taken any sides or insinuated any hidden political agenda, much less the accused "...calm folks who have a problem with this stupid bill..."

Remember that old saying...."please don't shoot the messenger..."

Thanks,

Skip

ApS · 03-26-2009, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

New Jersey mandates this orange flag to be displayed from the boat when a towed person is down:

That may be the model used here, though I doubt this proposal has any chance of passing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rinkerfam

"...It's only a matter of time before a house bill surfaces telling us how many squares we can use in the public facilities..."

Or for how long, as in, "Squares per Minute".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...if the cap isn't a guaranteed cure-all then certainly more visible is more saferer...!"

The cap would need to be reversable to cover the face: a swimmer doing a backstroke would not be displaying the cap properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Why people are fighting this I'll just never understand..."

People don't need to fight this: just tuck the cap in your swimsuit. The law doesn't state that the cap must be worn on one's head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...If you want to swim that far offshore then the ocean is only some miles away !! Take your reckless, mindless "swimming" to someplace where I won't have to see it..."

There was actually a case where miles off Miami, a boater encountered swimmers and radioed the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard informed the offshore boat that what the swimmers were doing was perfectly legal—then wrote the boat a ticket! I'll try to find the article: it's archived somewhere in this computer.

ETA: Just located the link in my computer. The link is HERE:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...I mean if kayaks can get cut in half then what does that say about the poor swimmer's chances...?"

A swimmer can submerge just 18" and be out of danger. (Just sayin').

tis · 03-26-2009, 07:20 AM

You know, Pineedles, I think we need more people like you who aren't afraid to be outspoken about losing our freedoms! I think your swim in is a great idea too!

nicole · 03-26-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

You know, Pineedles, I think we need more people like you who aren't afraid to be outspoken about losing our freedoms! I think your swim in is a great idea too!

I agree with you, tis!

Pineneedles-sign me up for the swim

Pineedles · 03-26-2009, 07:29 AM

Sorry Skip. Understood regarding messenger role. I just don't want folks to think, "Aw, its so far off before anything happens. I don't have to worry about it now. After all their just making us wear little stars on our chest, oops I mean caps on our heads, what's the big deal about that. They just want us to be more visible.

More visible is safer. Right, Mee-n-Mac?

DickR · 03-26-2009, 04:46 PM

"New Jersey mandates this orange flag to be displayed from the boat when a towed person is down:"

Frankly, if I am pullling someone behind me and he goes down, my first thought would not be to mount a flag while I am far more than 75 feet from the person down. My immediate priority is to get the boat near the person down, preferrably between him and any approaching boat.

If the state house clowns are itchy to do something about safety, I'd much rather they address boaters who tailgate another boat pulling someone. If the towed person goes down, that following boat has precious little time to take evasive action. I don't see how that could be addressed by law, however. But if I were a MP out there and saw a tailgater like that I would pull him over and read him the riot act.

Mee-n-Mac · 03-26-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Sorry Skip. Understood regarding messenger role. I just don't want folks to think, "Aw, its so far off before anything happens. I don't have to worry about it now. After all their just making us wear little stars on our chest, oops I mean caps on our heads, what's the big deal about that. They just want us to be more visible.

More visible is safer. Right, Mee-n-Mac?

Right ! At least for now .... until we can get more high tech about this whole offshore swimming thing. Once Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the National Healthcare Office, has put the RFID chip in you (and by "you" I mean all of us) then we can proceed to require RFID readers in all the boats. A proximity alert will sound any time you're too close to an above water swimmer. Of course if you decide not to alter course nor speed then the identity of the victim will already be known and a printout will emerge informing you where to send the flowers to.

Skip · 03-27-2009, 05:25 AM

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

tis · 03-27-2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Right ! At least for now .... until we can get more high tech about this whole offshore swimming thing. Once Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the National Healthcare Office, has put the RFID chip in you (and by "you" I mean all of us) then we can proceed to require RFID readers in all the boats. A proximity alert will sound any time you're too close to an above water swimmer. Of course if you decide not to alter course nor speed then the identity of the victim will already be known and a printout will emerge informing you where to send the flowers to.

AT the rate things are being passed, it may be sooner than we think, Mee! I truly think it is scary.

chipj29 · 03-27-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

That is great news Skip. But...

The scary part is that nearly 1/3 of our elected legislators thought that this bill was a good idea.

KonaChick · 03-27-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

Thank you for the update Skip

jeffk · 03-27-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

That is great news Skip. But...

The scary part is that nearly 1/3 of our elected legislators thought that this bill was a good idea.

The problem is that there are a lot of people out there, and apparently 91 in the legislature, that hear something is going to "protect" people and they don't think any further. They don't think about enforceability or negative side effects or cost or effects on freedom. It's all about protecting people. How can anyone be against protecting people?

Fortunately there were 201 people who didn't shut off their brain and did the right thing.

Lakegeezer · 03-27-2009, 10:42 AM

There is little doubt where the nannyism is coming from....

96% of those voting for the bill were democrats. (3 R vs 94 D)
70% of those against the bill were republicans (139 R vs 62 D)

98% of republicans and 40% of democrats voted against the bill
2% of republicans and 60% of democrats voted for it

Gender was a less of a factor, but shows an interesting point of view.

175 men voted vs 123 women

65% of those voting against the bill were men (131 M vs 70 W)
54% of those voting for the bill were women (53 W vs 44 M)

75% of men voted agaist the bill (131 to 44)
56% of women voted against the bill (70 to 53)

Based on:
142 republicans voted vs 156 democrats
33 republicans did not vote vs 67 democrats

KonaChick · 03-27-2009, 11:36 AM

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/nhgc...otedetail.aspx

Hope this link works if anyone is interested!

This'nThat · 03-27-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

65% of those voting against the bill were men (131 M vs 70 W)
54% of those voting for the bill were women (53 W vs 44 M)

This is a large reason why we call it the nanny state. The rest of the reason is due to democrats who refuse to think 5 minutes into the future to check consequences.

Pineedles · 03-27-2009, 12:22 PM

I think we all deserve a pat on the back for helping to defeat this bill. I would guess and granted it is only a guess, that some of those 63 democrats who voted against the bill may have seen some of our comments on this site. I say this because there have been other dumb bills voted on that had a slimmer margin or passed. Thank you all for your comments, thank you Skip for the information, and thank you Don for providing the forum that hopefully some of the Legislature looked at that influenced their vote.

gtxrider · 03-27-2009, 01:24 PM

Now what do I do with the Blaze Orange hat?

chipj29 · 03-27-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxrider

Now what do I do with the Blaze Orange hat?

Hunting season is right around the corner!

hazelnut · 03-27-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

HB 224:

I will be on my dock selling red swim caps for $50 a cap to any interested parties. WHO elected these people?!?!?

Looks like you need to find another Summer Job KonaChick

Sandy Beach · 03-31-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

The swim cap bill was still suported by one third as jeffk pointed out. That's a staggering number in favor of this swim cap silliness. Think it through people!

For instance, if a swimmer with a red cap wanted to rest or just float on their back, the cap could be pretty much below water. Where would those 91 expect a swimmer to put the red cap then?

Thank you for the good news Skip. You are an excellent contributer to the forum.

03-22-2009, 10:41 AM	#1
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	Hb 224 HB 224: Requires anyone going out past a swim line or more than 150' from shore has to wear a colored swim cap or be accompanied by a boat that displays a simmer's flag. "This allow boaters to see and identify swimmers in open water," wrote DEMOCRATIC PAUL INGERSOLL who suggested a red cap be worn by the swimmer, although the color and form would be left up to the agency rulemaking. Sunapee DEMOCRATIC REP. SUZANNE GOTTLING sponsored the bill. The House Transportation Committee unimanously endorsed it, although the committee reduced it from applying on all lakes in the state. The mandate would only apply to the state's largest water bodies: lakes Newfound, Ossipee, Squam, Sunapee, WINNIPESAUKEE and Winnisquam. I will be on my dock selling red swim caps for $50 a cap to any interested parties. WHO elected these people?!?!?

03-22-2009, 11:05 AM	#3
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,526 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Doesn't NH have a 150', safe passage rule, where boaters need to slow to 6mph. On Winnipesaukee it has always been pretty safe to swim out to the spar markers because of the real threat of underwater rocks to motor boats. Out beyond the spar markers a swimmer could maybe get hit but probably not. So, just wondering, when was the last time anyone swam out to a red & white or black & white spar marker? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

03-22-2009, 02:07 PM	#6
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,520 Thanks: 58 Thanked 266 Times in 187 Posts	what color hat will the dog have to wear __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-22-2009, 05:50 PM	#8
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Ugh I would love to help defeat this bill but I am not a voter and no rep or sen will pay attention to me.

03-22-2009, 08:22 PM	#12
Rinkerfam Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 268 Thanks: 0 Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts	I can't believe that people don't understand that government is there to protect us from ourselves Pandora's box is wide open folks. It's only a matter of time before a house bill surfaces telling us how many squares we can use in the public facilities around the lake __________________ Education is hanging around 'til you've caught on - Frost

03-22-2009, 06:07 PM	#9
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Isn't this stuff about ten days early?

03-22-2009, 07:27 PM	#11
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	OH MY GOD!!!! Who are these IDIOTS in the legislature????? I really used to envy New Hampshire and the lack of stupidity in government. Now it seems like every day some idiot lawmaker comes up with another LAW to fix a problem that does not exist. SERIOUSLY?!?! Am I missing something? When was the last boat/swimmer fatality on our lakes? Even if there was ONE do we need a law? This is a disgusting waste of time in the face of economic crisis. WOW!

03-22-2009, 08:24 PM	#14
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	I am sitting here LOL. This is just another bill, that goes along with the past issue we can't talk about..... Pretty soon, the lake will be so beautiful with All the wildlife and no people on it. Remember, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

03-22-2009, 08:59 PM	#15
Resident 2B Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Shore, MA Posts: 1,352 Thanks: 987 Thanked 310 Times in 161 Posts	Time to do some thinking I think it is about time that the native folks from New Hampshire started to think about the potential impact of all these really stupid new laws, including the "unspeakable new law". If the result of these stupid new laws was a significant drop in the desire of out-of-state property owners to own waterfront property in New Hampshire, what would the impact be? That is an important question! If this happened, I believe there would be a significant shift in tax burden from the out-of-state property owners to the New Hampshire property owners not living on the water. This would be the result of a huge fall in lake front property values driving a huge shift in tax burden back to those not living on the water front. I am a water front owner, so I wold be impacted through a huge loss of property value. I can also vote now, oh boy!! However, the BIGGER issue is the impact on non-water front residents through a major shift in tax burden. The folks in public office are getting more dangerous every year with their "error-on-the-side-of-safety" thinking. My point is, this 'safe-side-thinking" potentially impacts all New Hampshire residents, not just those that use the lake or own property on the lakes. It is time to do some very important thinking! R2B Last edited by Resident 2B; 03-22-2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Grammar correction

03-22-2009, 09:03 PM	#16
This'nThat Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 534 Thanks: 19 Thanked 134 Times in 61 Posts	Democrats = nannys, who need to control every aspect of our lives because, obviously, we are simply too stupid to know what's good for us. These nannys take our money because they know best how to spend it; define marriage for us because our millinea-old civilization never got it right in the first place; explain to us how much safer it would be if none of us owned any guns -- just trust them to coddle the criminals because society has done the criminals wrong; and now tells us what to wear while swimming. I'm sure the next step will be to force all swimmers to swim with life vests on, or only in waste-deep water, for safety sake. Question: How will this law be enforced? Will the MP be required to pull the swimmer over and ask him to produce his ID and swimming license? Will violations be reported to the DMV? If this is a repeat violation, will the swimmer be towed to shore and handcuffed to the pier? Will there be a public recounting in the Citizen's police log, and willl the trial dates be announced? If none of this has been thought out yet, then there's plenty of meddling yet for Democrats over the next few months.

03-22-2009, 09:56 PM	#17
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,130 Thanks: 201 Thanked 421 Times in 239 Posts	Are the MPs going to hand out waterproof tickets so I can tuck it into my swimsuit?

03-23-2009, 07:19 AM	#19
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,408 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	It is time to do more than some very important THINKING. But the best we can do is let them know how much we hate all their nanny legislation. But it is very discouraging because for every one of us who want to be responsible for ourselves and our own property, there are some who think the new laws will protect them. (Take the cspa for example and the unmentionable subject -look at all those who truly believe it is to protect our lake.) I am not sure which group outnumbers the other any more.

03-23-2009, 07:35 AM	#20
no-engine Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: West side Winnipesaukee, Lakes Region Posts: 516 Thanks: 20 Thanked 52 Times in 40 Posts	Why not forward all your posts to the legislature? What good only here?

03-23-2009, 09:26 AM	#21
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb224 So let me see if I understand this... If I want to stop the boat on a hot summer day and I'm in the broads I have to put on a swin capp?? In these difficult economic times I think the legislature would have more important work!

03-23-2009, 10:04 AM	#23
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb224 Thanks for the clarity.... still ridiculous

03-23-2009, 10:13 AM	#24
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Write to legislature I just wrote Suzanne Gottling an email. Whether she bothers to go to this site, which I invited her to do, to see how people feel about the bill or not is anyone's guess. But here is the link to her page in the legislature. Write to her and tell her to look at how peopel feel about this insane bill. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hous...?member=376780

03-23-2009, 11:27 AM	#26
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Just sent off my email, not sure if I will get a reply but I recommend we share Suzanne's response if they are forthcoming....

03-23-2009, 11:48 AM	#28
Gearhead Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Alton Posts: 166 Thanks: 13 Thanked 19 Times in 8 Posts	Should we have goggles too? Perhaps we should only be allowed to swim when a lifeguard is on duty, and only when we have our USCG approved waterproof "Swimming Certificates" affixed to our red caps like fishing licenses. She must carpool with Rep. Judith Day.

03-23-2009, 12:03 PM	#29
nicole Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Weirs Beach, NH Posts: 139 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 178 Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts	Wow-what a ridiculous bill. I cannot believe the out of control nanny state tax and spenders in Concord. I did not vote for any of them and I actually volunteered my time, energy and $$ to undo the elction of 2006 but unfortunately these people won again in 2008. It is something I don't understand. I continually call and email my reps-on all levels- about numerous issues. I find it amazing that my reps never reply to my E-mails or letters-well at least the local and state reps. I think the governor has replied to maybe 2 of my letters and they were form letters. I do hear back from those federal officials that I write-some always get back and others seldom do. I hope the people of our great state will return common sense to the NH state house in 2010. If someone actually has a state rep( not federal level) that actually replies to E-mails and gets back to them, I would love to hear about it. I have sent E-mails off to the author of this bill as well as my state sen and 4 house reps. I am wondering if we should all send E-mails to WMUR about this. Does their site have an area to do so. Perhaps if they receive many E-mails they will run a piece on it and it will get the word out. Nicole

03-23-2009, 12:24 PM	#30
Excalibur Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Gilford,NH is where I would like to be and Southborough, MA is where I have to be Posts: 85 Thanks: 14 Thanked 10 Times in 3 Posts	whats a swimmers flag? I have a dive flag and respect them as should everyone. As a diver I always check my surroundings. Being underwater in smith cove on a weekend probably comes close to the noise underwater of a u-boat being chased by the fleet in WW II. With that being said, I always surface by climbing up my boats anchor line. But if I swam out from shore and just had a dive flag, that's when the rule makes sense. I wouldn't have a vessel to protect me, but I am underwater and can not be seen, except fo my bubbles and I may pop up at any time. I believe this rule holds true for a snorkeler who may dive every so often. They should actually have a dive flag, but rarely enforced because its hard too. It may not be a bad idea for the boats out floating to say tell they have swimmers in the water. But I think majority of the people who swim off there boats stay quite close. Plus there is the 150 ft rule and I think you need to have some vision to operate a vessel. So is another law really needed ?? I can imagine going by brawn bay and seeing all those, "swimmer flags", flying. To tell the incoherent passerby that people may be in the water swimming. I guess the NH legislator came from the retiring MA legislators. I think we need a underground highway to make it easier to get thru Manchester.

03-23-2009, 01:18 PM	#31
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	I'm still waiting for the "Sunblock Bill." You know it is coming!!! A law making sunblock wearing mandatory on sunny days. Seriously we are in economic crisis and all this ninny can do is come up with a swimming law????? Who voted for her? Is she sane?

03-23-2009, 04:25 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	Good grief! Swimming laws. It is getting bad enough with all the Democrats not worrying about where the money is coming from to pay for enforcements during economics times. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

03-23-2009, 05:01 PM	#34
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,360 Thanks: 210 Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts	I will probably get flamed for saying this, but there are times that this law DOES make sense. For instance in front of my place on Mark, it is a pretty busy thru-way on the weekends. If someone ventures out 150'+ from shore they are in serious danger of getting run over. Many boats each day cut the corner too tight and even infringe on 150' which makes even being 100-125' out dangerous. This clearly puts people at risk there, if they travel beyond 150' from shore they are goners...I have had boats inside my moorings which are 90' from shore! We don't allow anyone to swim more than 20' past our swim raft. Of course the enforceability of it (ticketing swimmers for instance) is idiotic but I can think of other unenforceable/stupid laws on the books that are in place.

03-23-2009, 05:19 PM	#35
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Just received A response from Rep. Gottling . I inquired on why dosen't the legislature focus on more critical issues like the economy... Her response (while acknowledging we have economic issues ) was to explain the merits of the bill and how / who chose the cap colors. She indicated that the Marine Patrol was initially concerned .....but felt they had a presence already on the six lakes included in the amendment so they would be able to work with this bill. What are these representatives thinking???? At least she sent me a "response".

03-23-2009, 06:25 PM	#36
SteveA Deceased Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gilford, NH Posts: 2,311 Thanks: 1,070 Thanked 2,054 Times in 497 Posts	I don't think the proposed law goes far enough Might as well require that the red cap includes a built in GPS device so fines could be assigned remotely. While we're at it, let's require red caps onboard all boats incase anyone falls off a boat more than 150' from shore. Waterskiers must also wear red caps at all times, incase they dump more than 150' from shore. I seem to remember a 2am swim that envolved a red boa? Would the boa count as a cap? Even a good, card carrying screaming liberal like me, thinks this is just plain STUPID. YES WE CAN... as long as you have a Red Cap on. Forest Gump's, Mom said.. "Stupid is as Stupid does" I never understood that.. until now. __________________ "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown

03-23-2009, 07:01 PM	#37
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	Next Step..... ....is the official, State of NH (or maybe state of insanity) Swimmer's Safety Helmet. This will be a bright red bicycle helmet with a gimbel-mounted flag pole for displaying a swimmer flag (or the snap on accessory strobe light for night swimming), a built in EPIRB to summon help if needed, and an inflatable bouyancy collar in case you get exhausted by dragging all that crap around! Mandatory, available only from the State of NH, and a bargain at only $149.99! (Hey, revenue enhancement rules!) Silver Duck

03-23-2009, 07:40 PM	#38
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Good one Silver Duck! Love the revnue enhancement opportunity.. Can't wait to see the next piece of "meaningful legislation"

03-23-2009, 08:54 PM	#42
Irish mist Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 682 Thanks: 122 Thanked 85 Times in 49 Posts	2010 can't come quick enough so I can cast a vote to help remove this crowd. It's been difficult watching this state go the way of all the other nanny states. ________ Honda vt600 Last edited by Irish mist; 02-27-2011 at 10:45 PM.

03-23-2009, 09:22 PM	#43
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 I'm just tired of the legislature initiating "feel good" / non enforcable legislation and not focusing on legislation that gets us out of current crisis. It's disturbing that they refuse to see the bigger picture. They are most likely well educated people who are not stupid but somehow are missing the basics and what's important to te average Joe.

03-23-2009, 10:44 PM	#46
NightWing Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 410 Thanks: 4 Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts	They should focus on more important things, like banning any man with a waist of 42 inches or more, from wearing gold chains and a Speedo. __________________ In the dead of night they come - Swift - Silent - Savage

03-24-2009, 09:59 AM	#51
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	You Dems put these people in office I hope we all are feeling safer now. I know I'm not. I think this kind of legislation will actually put more people in danger by giving these "helpless" citizens a false sense of security so they believe they will now be safe in swimming anywhere in the lake alone. M&M has it spot on. __________________ SIKSUKR

03-24-2009, 12:38 PM	#54
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Hey,I own 2 of those M&M?Nobody is going to run me over in my shower! __________________ SIKSUKR

03-24-2009, 01:27 PM	#56
lakeforest Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	hb 224 What next! But if this bill passes, I suggest the head gear have red on one side and green on the other so the boats know which way the swimmer is headed!

03-25-2009, 07:57 AM	#61
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Gottling Quote Gottling is hopeful that HB224 will succeed, noting that it had bipartisan support in the Transportation Committee. "To me it would be extremely disappointing if a 15-0 vote out of a committee would be voted down." All this means Ms. Gottling is that there are 15 of you folks who don't deserve to be elected again!

03-25-2009, 11:59 AM	#67
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?