Lake Daytime Speed Limit

[tummyman]

Here is a new one to chew on....

An alert came out today from NH Lakes regarding legislation on rescinding the current daytime boat speed limit. New bill...HB1424 is set for a hearing next week to eliminate the daytime boat speed limit in its entirety. See below for info:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Valued Members and Friends of the Lake,

We have received notice that the public hearing for HB1424: relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee, will be set for February 22, 2022 at 1pm. The meeting will be in the large Representatives Hall which is safer for social distancing.

House Bill 1424 proposes to overturn the daytime boating speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. It is not too late for you to use your voice in opposition of this bill.

The increase in boating as a popular recreational activity coupled with the increased desirability to live and play in the Lakes Region, suggest that removing the speed limit could have severe consequences to public safety. For over a decade, the law has proven effective in discouraging reckless speeding. We need your help to keep the current speed limit law in place with NO changes because it is still effective.

If you do testify, we encourage you to include your stance on not amending this bill relative for The Broads. The location known as the Broads is the largest span of open water on Lake Winnipesaukee and is known for extremely hazardous conditions on days with inclement weather and high winds.

If the current speed limit law is overturned it would be a monumental and expensive effort to recover. We urge you to oppose this new legislation by taking the following actions:

1.) Contact the House Transportation Committee Members (See Button Below)
Write an email, send a letter or make a call to committee members explaining why the current speed limit is appropriate and why the law should not be changed.
An emphasis on safety concerns with anecdotes of personal/family boating experiences should be included to support your opposition to HB 1424.
Click the button below for contact information
2.) Testify and Sign Up in Opposition of HB 1424 at the Public Hearing
You are welcome to attend the public hearing and give public testimony.
Alternatively, you can CLICK HERE to submit your opposition through the NH House of Representatives Website. The website allows you to indicate your position and upload your remote testimony. If you choose to upload a remote testimony, your testimony will be publicly available here.
Step One: Click Link Above for Remote Testimony
Step Two: Fill Out Information and Select Date of Hearing (2/22/2022)
Step Three: Select Committee (Transportation)
Step Four: Select Bill (HB 1424)
Step Five: Select I am: (Member of the Public)
Step Six: Select who you are representing
Step Seven: Indicate your position
Step Eight: Upload Remote Testimony (optional)
Your voice counts! Please contact the NH House Transportation Committee Members now to help ensure that Lake Winnipesaukee remains a safe and enjoyable recreational experience for all.

Thank you.
Pat Tarpey, President
Lake Winnipesaukee Association

To submit written comments, mail to:
HouseTransportationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

[webmaster]

Some discussion from last November:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...d.php?p=364685

[chachee52]

So they want the speed limit everywhere except the Broads? Or including the Broads too?
I was always a fan of let the unlimited speed on the Broads even back when it first got put on the books. And I don't own a boat that can exceed 45 so it has nothing to do with me wanting to go that fast.

[lakewinnie]

AN ACT relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee.


The proposed House Bill reads as follows:

"Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Speed Limits; Lake Winnipesaukee. RSA 270-D:2, X(b) is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of 30 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023."

Hard to imagine this gaining any legislative traction.

[Senter Cove Guy]

...and go as fast as you want on the water in the daytime.

It's time for the boating speed limit to Die!

[Woodsy]

Not that this needs to be rehashed again...

I think the 45MPH limit should be lifted.... Especially in the Broads where visibility is measured in MILES! The SL does nothing to improve safety (no daytime accidents where speed was a factor), and it is rarely if ever enforced.

I would rather see the already short staffed MP spend their time enforcing the myriad of other violations (such as ROW and no wake) that occur on a daily basis!

I specifically didn't mention the 150" rule as IMHO, unless they are danger close (within 50') I really don't worry about it.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

At 50' what is the distance the vessel would travel when throttle was cut and the vessel allowed to drift forward?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

At 50' what is the distance the vessel would travel when throttle was cut and the vessel allowed to drift forward?

What does it matter how far a boat drifts after the throttle is chopped? This is not a collision situation or a ROW violation.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

With no speed limit and no safe zone as being proposed on this forum, I would presume that the concern to an open non-motorized craft would be a great deal enhanced.
If a boat approached too quickly and veered away sharply at speed, it could overturn or swamp them.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

AN ACT relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee.


The proposed House Bill reads as follows:

"Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Speed Limits; Lake Winnipesaukee. RSA 270-D:2, X(b) is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of 30 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023."

Hard to imagine this gaining any legislative traction.

It could. This item may see increases in valuations of lakefront properties as individuals with higher incomes might feel that 45mph in all situations is imprudent and costing them what they consider valuable time - sort of like sitting in a traffic jam; the vehicles are moving but slower than they want.

[Descant]

To my knowledge, NH is the only state with a 150' boat to boat 150' rule. It does not gain us anything except a lot of jibber jabber on places like this forum. Certainly not an advanced safety record compared to other states. Mostly unenforced, especially on lakes less than 10,000 acres. Time for it to go.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

To my knowledge, NH is the only state with a 150' boat to boat 150' rule. It does not gain us anything except a lot of jibber jabber on places like this forum. Certainly not an advanced safety record compared to other states. Mostly unenforced, especially on lakes less than 10,000 acres. Time for it to go.

There are over 1 million boats registered in Florida and many more nice boating days than New Hampshire has. There is no speed limit, and no 150 foot rule, and there does not seem to be a safety problem.

Since 2007 I have had a boat in Florida and use it often during the winter. People in other boats regularly pass by 50 feet away, sometimes 25 feet away. You get used to it and it is no big deal. Would I prefer that they stay a little further away? Sure, but it is no big deal if they don't.

We need to get back to "Live Free or Die"

[John Mercier]

Really? So listen to the loud music and suck it up.

[BroadHopper]

Yet weekends during seasons are the craziest most dangerous time to boat in NH. I've boats in Maine, Massachusetts, and VT as well as Florida and lakes along the Colorado River. I actually feel safer boating outside of NH.

So how do 150' and speed limits laws make the lakes safer? It doesn't. What will make the lake safer is enforcing common sense into these people and revoking their rights to operate rather than slapping them with warnings and or small fines.

[phoenix]

Wow you could get across the broads in two minutes faster. I thought this issue was dead

[John Mercier]

It will never be.
I think that people don't realize that the population in the county and even more so the lakes' usage is going to continue to grow... maybe faster than in recent history.
I see a day not to distant than any property with a view of the lake will be built out. That property like that on Winni will fetch over one million just for a view, and lake frontage will be measured in multiple millions.
When people have that much money invested into something, they usually are not going to be highly concerned with those that have to tow their boat to the lake and use a public launch... much less anyone that is in a non-motorized craft.

They would be paying tens of thousands in property taxes to low cost municipalities like Moultonborough to maybe more than the average household income to those in municipalities like Laconia.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So how do 150' and speed limits laws make the lakes safer? It doesn't.

Speed limits and the 150’ rule probably make the lake “somewhat” safer, because both restrictions provide for increased reaction times that allow for accident avoidance in a few limited situations. Whether or not the increased reaction times provides a statistically significant improvement in safety is debatable

I also boat in FL, where 25 mph speed limits are common in congested areas, such as in tighter areas of the inter-coastal waterway. In more open areas, there are no speed limits. There is no 150’ rule, which would be nearly impossible to implement in the inter-coastal, due to the narrow dredged channels, and the significant quantity of boat traffic. I don’t feel any safer in either boating location.

In my opinion, the speed limits in NH were brought about as a result of boat noise, as opposed to boat speeds. In the 80’s, there was a proliferation of “go fast” boats with loud through hull exhausts. There was (is) a perception of speed associated with the noise, and the noise was disturbing to those who enjoyed the peaceful nature of the lake. Authorities found it hard to enforce noise ordinances, which ultimately (in my opinion) brought about the speed limit legislation. I’ll bet most people who supported speed limits would have been just as happy, if not happier, if boats were quieter, as opposed to slower.

Part of the problem is that people get so passionate about these issues, that they tend to argue for the extremes. If I were king, I’d implement the following rules, in an effort to maximize everybody’s enjoyment of the lake:

1. Ban through hull exhaust on any boat sold within one year post legislation. There is no reason that one boaters preference for loud noise should impact everybody within ear shot of that noise. Existing through hull exhausts could be grandfathered, but only if they are on a boat manufactured pre-legislation, and only if they note the through hull exhaust on their registration form, so as to avoid post legislative conversions.

2. Keep the 150’ rule. It’s too controversial an issue to change, and everybody has enjoyed the lake with the rule in effect for many years. It’s not that big a deal to endeavor to keep your distance from other boats, and it probably aids in maximizing the enjoyment of those boaters who operate at slower speeds, or in smaller vessels.

3. Keep the 45 mph speed limit on most of the lake, but eliminate the speed limit in the Broads. 45 mph is fast enough in most of the bays, where there tends to be more boat congestion. In the Broads, there is plenty of room, and it would allow those with faster boats to traverse the lake faster, and allow a place for them to enjoy some of the exhilaration of traveling at a higher rate of speed.

Aside from the thru hull issue, this doesn’t change much from the status quo. In reality, the 150 foot rule, and the speed limit, are difficult for marine patrol to enforce, due to the challenges of definitively determining a violation. If there was a bit of give and take on both sides, I think there would be less bickering about the rules, and more enjoyment for everybody.

But, I’m not a king, and I don’t get to make the rules. Hopefully those who do make the rules will try to see both sides of these issues, and legislate something that makes sense.

[John Mercier]

Exhaust noise is covered under a different RSA.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Exhaust noise is covered under a different RSA.

Correct. I believe the law was put in place in the 80’s. The problem was (is) that the law allows for above water exhaust if there is a “muffling device”. The muffling device is undefined, so boaters were arguing that the flappers on the pipes were “muffling devices”, even though they did little or nothing to mitigate the sound. They also allowed switchable exhausts, so it was impossible to determine if an offending device was on, or not, when a boat was stopped for a noise violation. Further, it was so difficult to accurately determine a methodology to measure the sound, that marine patrol gave up trying to enforce the law.

If the goal is to make the boat quiet, the exhaust needs to be underwater when the boat is running. The original intent was good. The wording was poor.

I think its better now than it was in the 80’s, but in my opinion, there are far too many obnoxiously load boats out there, that do not meet the spirit or intent of the law.

[8gv]

Many "captains" operate their boats on Winni in an unsafe manner.

There are not enough water cops to deal with all that goes on.

If something bad is going to happen, it happening at a slower speed will likely result in a less bad outcome.

I believe:

There are boaters that do not exceed the current limit.

There are boaters who exceed the limit by 10-20%.

There are boaters that exceed the limit by a much larger margin.

If there is no limit, I expect at least two if not all three of the groups above to go faster.

Consider highway driving.

If the limit is 55 there are a few going that speed but most are going faster with some going much faster.

In a 70 zone it's the same but faster.

Would you want to have NO speed limit on I93?

If that were the case, what would you expect for speeds and speed differentials?

Without naming names, I'll just suggest that some drivers have a daily white knuckle, dog eat dog commute to work.

They are the ones who aggressively assert themselves on your rear bumper as they rush to their calming lake retreat.

"They" operate their boats the same way.

Keep the speed limit.

[Senter Cove Guy]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Many "captains" operate their boats on Winni in an unsafe manner.

There are not enough water cops to deal with all that goes on.

If something bad is going to happen, it happening at a slower speed will likely result in a less bad outcome.

I believe:

There are boaters that do not exceed the current limit.

There are boaters who exceed the limit by 10-20%.

There are boaters that exceed the limit by a much larger margin.

If there is no limit, I expect at least two if not all three of the groups above to go faster.

Consider highway driving.

If the limit is 55 there are a few going that speed but most are going faster with some going much faster.

In a 70 zone it's the same but faster.

Would you want to have NO speed limit on I93?

If that were the case, what would you expect for speeds and speed differentials?

Without naming names, I'll just suggest that some drivers have a daily white knuckle, dog eat dog commute to work.

They are the ones who aggressively assert themselves on your rear bumper as they rush to their calming lake retreat.

"They" operate their boats the same way.

Keep the speed limit.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Die speedlimit, Die!

[TiltonBB]

In the 80's the Marine Patrol would station a boat in the Weirs Channel near the southern end of the no wake zone. They had a second boat with a decibel meter set up about 1/2 mile south in Paugus Bay. That boat would set out a couple of floats about 30 feet apart.

When the Marine Patrol Officer in the Channel found a boat that he felt might be too loud he directed them to go through the markers at cruising speed while their sound output was measured.

I had a friend who tried to quiet his boat down to the point that after adding baffles he hung truck mud flap off of the swim platform down to the water. The boat was still too loud and he had to take it off of the lake.

To their credit, the Marine Patrol allowed him several "free passes" after he did all the work on it to see if it was quiet enough.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

In the 80's the Marine Patrol would station a boat in the Weirs Channel near the southern end of the no wake zone. They had a second boat with a decibel meter set up about 1/2 mile south in Paugus Bay. That boat would set out a couple of floats about 30 feet apart.

When the Marine Patrol Officer in the Channel found a boat that he felt might be too loud he directed them to go through the markers at cruising speed while their sound output was measured.

I had a friend who tried to quiet his boat down to the point that after adding baffles he hung truck mud flap off of the swim platform down to the water. The boat was still too loud and he had to take it off of the lake.

To their credit, the Marine Patrol allowed him several "free passes" after he did all the work on it to see if it was quiet enough.

We were "invited" to take our boat to Timber Island to be tested on a Sunday morning. Once we were stopped the boat could not be on the lake until we passed the test. In the meantime we had work done on it to try to make it quieter so we could pass the test. We flunked. After a few tries and about 6 or 7 thousand dollars we finally passed -but just barely. At that time I don't think the marinas really knew what to do to quiet them. I loved that boat, it was one of my favorite ever boats. And also at that time "Captain's Call" ( the ability to switch between loud and quiet) was illegal. Now I am pretty sure it is legal.

[chachee52]

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by chachee52

And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

Never said that it didn't. Just sharing my opinion that on 93 people drive whatever they want anyway. Hence I put the laughing emoji on it. SenterCoveGuy said " what if 93 had no speed limit". Got passed the other day while I was going 75 keeping up with traffic like I was going about 20 mph.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by chachee52

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

That was "one of the other reasons". Didn't want to add another aspect to the law in this discussion. Was trying to keep it to the speed. But yes, radar gun are almost useless on the water. Also the initial "testing" time frame was significantly decreased before they passed the bill.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

Marine Patrol Director David Barrett, Captain Dunleavy's boss, opposed the speed limit law in 2005.

The head of the state agency that would have to enforce the limits is opposed. Marine Patrol Director David Barrett said the law would be unenforceable. He also said supporters are pushing the law to get rid of high-performance speed boats.

"This is feel-good legislation," Barrett said. "The proponents are being disingenuous. This is exclusionary and being used to get rid of a kind of boat they don't like."

Although David Barrett has passed away (2011) he was right in 2005, and remains right today.

[The Real BigGuy]

Thanks Woodsy. You did a great job of explaining the wake phenomenon


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[thinkxingu]

I kinda like where we're at because, let's be honest, the only people not speeding on the lake are the ones who don't take that level of speedboat there because of the limit.

It's like the highway system now. Sure, there's a 55/65 MPH speed limit that keeps supercars and bikes to a minimum but nobody actually stays under 65.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[thinkxingu]

Hey, we agree on something! A boating outing doesn't go by without a kayaker or canoeist in the middle of a busy passage being a safety hazard.

Note that I didn't say "nuisance" because everyone has access to the lake, but there's a courtesy that comes from thinking safety.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[thinkxingu]

If I'm not mistaken, speed limits were more about fuel conservation, right?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

If I'm not mistaken, speed limits were more about fuel conservation, right?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

For the highway... yes.

The US has always had a problem that some refuse to accept.
Even during our highest domestic crude oil production... we produced roughly 13/mbd and used 21/mbd.

[LoveLakeLife]

James Carville, not Larry.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife

James Carville, not Larry.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Sorry, will correct. We have an acquaintance named Larry Carville. And I have also been corrected on another point. Three, not two co-sponsors of HB 1424 are no longer supporting the bill. John Potucek has joined Reps. Littlefield and Thompson. All three are Republicans. I know some on this forum will disagree but I would respectfully argue that when half of a bill's co-sponsors defect it seems to me that people are coming to the realization that this bill is irresponsible, reckless, and wildly unpopular.

[The Real BigGuy]

I have no problem with high speed boats. I’ve been in a friend’s Fountain 15 or so years ago doing in excess of 90. Second most exciting boat ride I have ever had. It isn’t speed that is the problem. The lake is much more crowded then it was years ago and pure probability would say there are more ass-hat operators on the lake then there were years ago.

If you could guarantee me that all people doing 75 + in the broads would have the common sense to slow down and operate safely around other boats in more congested areas I’d be all for upping the speed limit. Unfortunately, you can’t and a few of “me first” operators will ruin it for all. Witness all the “no wake”, “stand on”, & “150 ft” jugheads out there.

In summation, leave the damn speed limit where it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

If you Google lakes shut down to powerboats several of various sizes, in various states, come up over past years for various reasons such as erosion, pollution, etc. Most appear to be temporary closures.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

I think we may be looking at fitting more and more people into a finite space.