Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[Bear Islander]

Governor will sign the Speed Limit bill HB847.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-117786073e99

[Islander]

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Islander

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.

You will also be hard pressed to see any change.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

Huh? I thought they were fighting for a speed limit...

[fatlazyless]

Sure, I'm pleased that Gov Lynch has decided to sign HB 847, but I'm also surprised that it did not meet up with his veto.

Having passed the senate by 14-10 on May 15, I was really wondering what the delay could be. It is safe to assume that the Senate President and the Governor, both Democrats, must have discussions about pending bills before a bill is submitted to the Governor for his signature.

Maybe it was just a case of me getting 'nervous in the service' but I thought that as time went by, HB 847's likelihood of approval was dimming.
......

"A lot of Bills will go across Gov. John Lynch's desk, but few will rise to the level of a veto.
Two considered ripe for the stamp are a bariatric surgery bill and one that sets up a two-year speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee."

Union Leader, Sunday June 15, Tom Fahey's political opinion column
......

A big round of applause to Governor Lynch, and should he decide to challenge Senator Gregg in November 2010, he will most likely get my vote.

[watrskir]

looks like I wont be voting for lynch again!!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by watrskir

looks like I wont be voting for lynch again!!

Did you know that his Republican opponent for the governor's race in November, State Senator Joe Kenney, (R) Wakefield was one of two Republican senators who voted yes to HB 847.

There were two Republican senators voting yes, and two Democrats voting no........go figure?

Plus, Senator Kenney is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Marine Corps.

Maybe, I should vote for Senator Kenney for Governor!

[SIKSUKR]

Here's WMUR's story:

Governor to sign boat-speed bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting how the governor says speed was an issue and the story says right after that the NHMP found that speed WAS NOT AN ISSUE.Apparently he has no confidence in his Marine Patrol and does not believe the work they did and he must have conducted his own speed survey to arrive at that conclusion.Pretty lame.

[fatlazyless]

I'm disappointed the governor is going to sign it. I'm out 70 times a year and I haven't seen anything that says we need it." said Hickok, adding that it will result in the state expending funds on a problem he does not think exists.

Hickok travels Winnipesaukee on everything from a rowing scull to a 28-foot bowrider and said the new law will do little to curb the problems on the state's largest lake.

The last two paragraphs from today's article, June 26 www.citizen.com, by Geoff Cunningham Jr.
.....

And, what about the 27' twin hull Skater-Cat, powered by two Merc 300hp two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the broads?

That is one incredibly hot boat............bbbbbzzzzzz........sort of like Nascar on the water.

I still say Winnipesaukee should have a designated go-fast area and time.....such as Wednesdays and Sundays, noon-3, out on the broads. Winnipesaukee has been growing as a fast boat lake since 1925, and everyone knows that Winnipesaukee is the place to go for big, fast boats.

I could putt-putt out there in my ancient Starcraft and watch the big boats roar back & forth, from behind the safety of a designated orange buoy, off-track border area. Sort of like Nascar on the water.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Right you are VtSteve, and watch for the influx of Marine Patrol boats, crews and even a couple of Marine Patrol aircraft from all the extra funding provided by HB847!

[sarcasm] That is great news for people who boat on a lake not named Winnipesaukee. Since the MPs will be focusing their manpower on a speed problem there, they will be free to ride unlimited speeds on other lakes! Sweet! [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The last two paragraphs from today's article, June 26 www.citizen.com, by Geoff Cunningham Jr.
.....

And, what about the 27' twin hull Skater-Cat, powered by two Merc 300hp two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the broads?

That is one incredibly hot boat............bbbbbzzzzzz........sort of like Nascar on the water.

I still say Winnipesaukee should have a designated go-fast area and time.....such as Wednesdays and Sundays, noon-3, out on the broads. Winnipesaukee has been growing as a fast boat lake since 1925, and everyone knows that Winnipesaukee is the place to go for big, fast boats.

I could putt-putt out there in my ancient Starcraft and watch the big boats roar back & forth, from behind the safety of a designated orange buoy, off-track border area. Sort of like Nascar on the water.

Right you are Less. After all, that one boat travelling at 107 mph put so many people in jeopardy. How many accidents did that boat cause again? Please refresh my memory.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.

Absolutely. No longer will completely drunk people be able to speed on the lake, possibly going as fast as 28 mph and running over another boat.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by VtSteve

Absolutely. No longer will completely drunk people be able to speed on the lake, possibly going as fast as 28 mph and running over another boat.

Right you are VtSteve, and watch for the influx of Marine Patrol boats, crews and even a couple of Marine Patrol aircraft from all the extra funding provided by HB847!

[2Blackdogs]

"They" told us they would leave Winni. Now we should pray for the boaters and the residents along the shores of Long Lake, Lake Ossipee, and Dave R's quiet lake in Maine.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

"They" told us they would leave Winni. Now we should pray for the boaters and the residents along the shores of Long Lake, Lake Ossipee, and Dave R's quiet lake in Maine.

We are not leaving................. This is our lake not yours.

[EricP]

I seriously doubt that anything will change. It's a sad day for the lake actually. There has never been a speed problem on the lake. Once again our legislators wasted our time and money passing a useless law. I am so glad I pay for this kind of intelligence. I congratulate noone as I don't think rewarding fear mongerers is warranted.

[Airwaves]

At the risk of revealing my true identity as Clark Kent, Define ATC and where you heard or read or saw this:

Originally posted by 2Blackdogs
I would strongly disagree with any claim that the damage caused to that boat could have been caused during salvage. That boat is evidence in a criminal investigation. It would have been handled with kid gloves with law enforcement personnel watching. It's hard to argue with facts but easy to say, "Big Deal." Well, the deaths of innocent passengers is a big deal, in my opinion. And two such deaths in six years on one lake caused by people who should know better is an even bigger deal.

This will fuel the speed limit fires and most likely cause speed limits to be established. The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts. The operator, a professional, is 100% responsible for this death. There's no doubt in my mind that the courts will also find similarly, if not in criminal court, certainly in civil court.
Les Hall, ATC Forum Host
Posted - Jun 21 2008 : 15:47:20

Because I WILL follow up!

[Airwaves]

ATC means...."Ask The Captain" It's nothing more that a forum like this one!!!

So you are trying to link what "Ask the Captain" forum says to the accident?

Unless you can show that L Hall is involved in the investigation as he/she appears to suggest;

The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts.

If he/she is involved in the investigation I would recommend legal action against him/her immediately! If L Hall isn't, then what is your point? Just another uninformed speculation opinion that in MHO could be sued!


AW (aka Clark Kent)

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

"The Mod" seems to agree with you, 'cuz my replies are being delayed.

Since I don't want to offend your tender sensibilities too much in one post, I'll proceed very slowly with my rebuttals.

Just now, I found a second "idiot".



Note ye well the date. It was four days before your reply. And I have yet some more surprises for you, and for the forum at large on this issue.

I don't have enough facts to disagree with him or not. Gut reaction, he's right, I don't have any problems at all with his statements. Excessive speed for conditions is a long held navigational rule. Doing 20 mph in heavy fog conditions with no radar, etc... is excessive. Piloting a boat while intoxicated will get you into a heap of trouble if caught, especially in an accident. I don't disagree with any of that, I've stated the above. The facts will probably show this, I don't know.

But your continued linking of nonsensical statements, weaving them into a discussion where they have no place, is not right. If someone is intoxicated, and drives an express cruiser into the rocks on a dark and foggy night, the first thing that comes to my mind is not the size or speed of the boat. Your first thoughts are the type of boat and the speed. Most people wouldn't think of a speed limit first as a solution, you would.

So I'm not offended at all, just amazed really.

Forgot train of thought, not enough coffee. I wouldn't term that response idiotic. In fact, as I've stated, I agree with his broad statements. Who knows what this case will show, I think I am leaning a few ways, but I don't know the facts.

The response you pasted above is not offensive, at least not to be. But please don't for a minute think that anyone would relate your responses to that one. If you think you're that straighforward, don't. Your first two sentences to my reply are confusing enough, to follow that with a sensible response apparently copied from another site is even more confusing. That post id not idiotic, but yours are.

[2Blackdogs]

BoaterEd is definitely not the same kind of forum. They deal with life and death issues on a much broader, national, and even international scale.

VtSteve writes:

The response you pasted above is not offensive, at least not to be. But please don't for a minute think that anyone would relate your responses to that one. If you think you're that straighforward, don't. Your first two sentences to my reply are confusing enough, to follow that with a sensible response apparently copied from another site is even more confusing. That post id not idiotic, but yours are.
Last edited by VtSteve; 06-27-2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Forgot main reply

Thank you for editing that, as I had trouble following your first attempt at it.

VtSteve, I still stand by my own observations of moon and weather. Do you stand by your own speed limit posts that anyone can view on the World Wide Web? Or is it, somehow, unfair to list these?

"Lake Champlain is quite a bit different than Winni. Not as congested, spread out."

"Can we all agree that it's stupid to go through a 6mph zone at 80mph at night? Can we at least respect ourselves and others to do that? How stupid is it that they go 90 in a NWZ, and they want a 45 mph speed limit on the lake?"

"Yes, we all have a few beers."

"Courtesy was not their forte. You know the type, the ones that spoil the school dance for everyone, the ones that spoil parties due to their being obnoxious."

"Absolutely wild in a Donzi 18. My BIL had one that freaked me out at about 70."


"The drinks on the lake are getting quite expensive."

"Some adolescents never learn. And almost always, they ruin it for others."

"Bear Islander truly needs a smack up side the head to bring him to reality."

"I knew it would come to this. Just a few ******* ruin it for everyone. But the arrogance of a few standout powerboats is all the weenies need for a group to focus on. As they say, police yourselves or perish."

~VtSteve

Well, enough of that.

As I earlier told Evenstar and am advising you and Airwaves now, the Speed Limit forum will gradually diminish into nothingness once the rants fade away.

The House and Senate granted approvals, and the Governor will sign HB847.

On this lake, Vermonters and Mainers need to accept this Legislature's long-considered debate, just as others must accept the consequence that some unwanted company will be visiting you.

The Granite State has spoken.




Sincerely yours,

Pond scum

[VtSteve]

Well, I see that not only do you have enough time to follow me around on the internet, you also take my posts out of context, without links. Probably wise for you, since everyone would wonder why you were quoting me in the first place. You've rarely answered direct questions, nor do you reply without an evasive answer.

One note, That was most certainly not my writing about Bear Islander. Perhaps you should link it and admit your intent. You're a very intellectually dishonest person BD, and I'm sure that many speed limit supporters would prefer that you weren't on their side on this issue, at least not on paper.

You're childish, and quite unethical. But character issues don't deter you at all, just your agenda. You will note that I use the same online name in all forums, so perhaps that helped you out a bit. I have nothing to hide about my online posts, in fact, I'd prefer that people saw what I posted on other boards. Fairly consistent and open.

[Airwaves]

2Blackdogs
I guess I missed the point of you latest post. I was responding to your acertion that something Les Hall of ATC wrote was fact. I pointed out that Les Hall is nothing more than a poster on a forum much like this and that unless he is directly involved in the investigation, he is just speculating without direct knowledge.

When we learn the facts of the case then we can discuss them, til then I'll wait.

[VtSteve]

Perhaps I can understand Don not wanting to flood another site or sites, and I'm fine with this.

Here's some of my (unedited) posts.

"It's been 10 years since I was over at Winni, spending some 30 years on the lake. There were quite a few go fast boats way back, but certainly not with the engines and size as are available now.

My advice, is to just use common sense. Realize that lakes are for everyone, and you'll have to deal with everything from cayaks and canoes to huge cabin cruisers. Be courteous, and you'll earn the respect of the MP. After awhile, they'll get to know who the trouble makers are, and the majority will be fine."
__________________________________________________ ___________

"It's all about attitude men. I grew up on that lake, around the time of the first series of noisemakers. Not real speed, just noise. I love fast boats, and I love that lake. The problem was always to contain those that snubbed everyone's rights. Courtesy was not their forte. You know the type, the ones that spoil the school dance for everyone, the ones that spoil parties due to their being obnoxious.

I'm all for freedom on the lake, and winced when I saw the speed limit pass. Back in the 80's, maybe earlier, I knew it would come to this. Just a few a-holes ruin it for everyone. My own personal belief is that most of the a-holes are the new wakeboard boat set. But the arrogance of a few standout powerboats is all the weenies need for a group to focus on. As they say, police yourselves or perish.

Some adolescents never learn. And almost always, they ruin it for others."
__________________________________________________ _________

"Whether the site sucks or not is of no importance to me. Obviously it's not the caliber that this one is. I've not had an issue there at all.

The best way to find the root of a problem is to listen to all sides. It's taken two years plus to find the core issues. It didn't take me that long at all, that's what I do.

When people have the ability and the support to enact legislation that can impact your favorite things in a negative manner, it makes sense to find out what the fuss is all about. In a nutshell,

1) It's not really about speed, as I guessed.
2) Noise (you've heard this one before I suspect)
3) Reckless behavior
4) Disrespect for the lake, it's residents, and boating.

That's what "Some" in the GF community have left as an impression on those folks. What percentage it is, I have no idea, probably the same few all the time.

If I could keep my lake from having a ridiculous speed limit by eliminating the real bozos that are screwing it up, I'd make sure I did it. It's easy to be contentious online, and it typically is. But go fats boaters have families like everyone else, and most take pride in their boats, not to mention the investments made. I'd wager a guess than most on this forum have far more boating expertise and common sense than the majority of recreational boaters.

I'd not frequent a lake that has the types of restrictions Lake George has on it now, and I suspect they have those limits for the very same reasons Winni is looking into it. If we're all lucky, the law will not pass, and better solutions will prevail."

My response to the Lake George accident thread. Where the driver of a Cobalt bowrider was charged with BUI after running up onto an island.

"The drinks on the lake are getting quite expensive."

Get it BD?

__________________________________________________ _______

[Bear Islander]

The member responsible for "Bear Islander truly needs a smack up side the head to bring him to reality." is Cal not VtSteve.

[2Blackdogs]

My midnight view of landforms miles away was possible due to the fully lighted night sky silhouetting them. One solar light on unlighted islands' docks would contribute nothing to night sky pollution, but benefit the night boater. If the N***A was truly an organization for Winni boaters, it's a suggestion they never published during their entire existence.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

2Blackdogs
I guess I missed the point of you latest post. I was responding to your acertion that something Les Hall of ATC wrote was fact. I pointed out that Les Hall is nothing more than a poster on a forum much like this and that unless he is directly involved in the investigation, he is just speculating without direct knowledge.

When we learn the facts of the case then we can discuss them, til then I'll wait.

Les doesn't have the advantage of having viewed the scene as I have. But he's "The Mod", as Vermont Steve would call him at BoaterEd.com, and is characteristically very much on-target with his observations.

Given that, which opinions do you disagree with?

This will fuel the speed limit fires and most likely cause speed limits to be established. The facts remain that a boat was traveling at excessive speed at 2 AM without electronics on a night with limited visibility. You can try to dance around these facts as much as you want but they remain facts. The operator, a professional, is 100% responsible for this death. There's no doubt in my mind that the courts will also find similarly, if not in criminal court, certainly in civil court.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Right out of the box, Les turned out correct on the Governor's signing of HB847!

The woman hit an island, ripped off the front third of the boat and then bounced back 20 or so feet. That fact that she hit the island and did as much damage as she did is prima facie evidence of excessive speed.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Indisputable evidence.

The two accidents that we have discussed here, both resulting in fatalities, were caused by people who certainly should have known better than to operate in the manner that caused the deaths. But we all get complacent. After running in the same waters year after year, it's just human nature to get a little cocky and relax our standards. However, one of the quotes from a previous thread sums it up best:

"The sea is selective, slow at recognition of effort and aptitude but fast in sinking the unfit"

Or, in this case, the irreverent.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

No comment needed.

headline reads Boat crash: Beer cans, a night out

THAT, of course, led to this

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-117786073e99

headlined Governor to sign boat-speed bill

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

THAT is what I said, but it got deleted here! "Sterile objectivity" not allowed here.

The legislation had passed prior to the accident. However, he hadn't decided if he would sign it or not. However, the head of the organization, misleadingly called the NH recreational boaters association that was formed for the sole purpose of fighting the limits, decided to drink (we don't know how many yet), take her go-fast out on a dark night and run, at speed, into an island, killing one of her best friends. At the very least, it nullifies all the arguments they had been making about self regulation. After this, the public would have been all over him if he had vetoed the legislation.

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

"The organization" was resurrected by www.winnilakers.com to fight speed limits. (And stole "The Mods" logo for a long time).

As a result of the collision, the Governor had no options left to veto the bill, and used the airwaves to sign it, even before it could arrive at his desk.

A nice use of the word "airwaves" right, "Airwaves"?

RULE 6
Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) the state of visibility;

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

If anyone should side with Les Hall on this, it is Airwaves, but I could be wrong.

It's one thing to be distracted by dropping your cellphone at night while driving, and another to speed merrily along in foggy conditions. Even totally wasted drunks can keep their cars between the curbstones, with the occasional big maple interrupting progress. Here, we have Diamond Island.

Airwaves wants to wait for the answer to come from the back of the courtroom, like Perry Mason.

That's not going to happen.

Bear Islander,

I threw that one in, knowing who said it, but I happen to like the lighthearted way Cal expresses himself here though we disagree. The opponents are truly two-faced, there and here.

I was looking for intellectual honesty from Vermont Steve, but didn't get it. There was no correct attribution, and no link to any of three sites the quotes were taken from. We got spoon-fed "answers" instead, and no mention of the beers they prefer while boating.

BI, since you surf the SL opponents' site, how about the origin of this quote?

id find out the trouble makers on the lake and make their lives a living hell...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

As I earlier told Evenstar and am advising you and Airwaves now, the Speed Limit forum will gradually diminish into nothingness once the rants fade away.
Sincerely yours,

Pond scum

Let's hope so because the rants that come from members like yourself do nothing but polarize the two sides instead of having meaningfull discussion.Especially when your rants accuse a member of posting something that was not even his as pointed out by someone on your side of this debate.

Pond Lilly

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Let's hope so because the rants that come from members like yourself do nothing but polarize the two sides instead of having meaningfull discussion.Especially when your rants accuse a member of posting something that was not even his as pointed out by someone on your side of this debate.

Pond Lilly

I have to disagree with you on one point. 2Blackdogs is not a member of "our side" of the debate. He has been a member of the forum for more than four years yet the majority of his posts have been about an accident that happened two weeks ago. And he NEVER posted about speed limits until two days AFTER the Senate passed HB847. He had nothing to say about speed limits until it was all over.

He is a member of the "accident speculation" movement, not the speed limit movement.

As the forums unofficial spokesperson for the pro speed limit side I declare that 2Blackdogs is not a member of our group.

[VtSteve]

Sorry BI, he hates GF boats and loves the speed limits. You'll have to keep him on your side, no room for him here.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Sorry BI, he hates GF boats and loves the speed limits. You'll have to keep him on your side, no room for him here.

How about a swap then?

Two members for one, plus a boater to be named later.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about a swap then?

Two members for one, plus a boater to be named later.

I'd immediately trade BD and TB to the minors, where they would be released. I'll agree to the turnip to be named later. I'll also agree to not make huge protest waves near Bear Island, which would very quickly erode your camp's waterfront. And, not being one to flout the law, I promise next trip over there, I WILL NOT do 90mph through the NWZ. AND, I absolutely, positively, WILL NOT circle Evenstar from 151' making large, loopy waves to see how her sea kayak handles the big stuff.

Just kidding Hon.....

Seriously BI, we both have lots more in common as lake lovers than we disagree on. We also share some of the same problems and concerns. It's doubtful I'll get over your way this year, although I'd like to. Love to meet some of you peeps sometime.

[SIKSUKR]

We should all feel safe now and you will not see any more so called "speed" related accidents on Winni.I know I feel so much safer.

From WMUR:

New Law Sets Speed Limits For Lake Winnipesaukee

POSTED: 10:50 am EDT July 8, 2008
UPDATED: 11:08 am EDT July 8, 2008


CONCORD, N.H. -- Boaters who drive fast on Lake Winnipesaukee next summer will risk speeding tickets.

Gov. John Lynch signed a bill into law Monday that sets speed limits on the lake for two years. The speed limits will be 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night, effective Jan. 1.

Boat speed limits have been debated for years. This plan differs from past plans because it applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee and would go off the books in two years.

Speed-limit supporters had argued two years would be plenty of time for a test. They said people are afraid to canoe or swim, especially on weekends when boat traffic is most congested.

Opponents said the limits are unnecessary. They pointed to a state Marine Patrol study last summer that found few boats exceeded the proposed limit. Out of 3,852 boats clocked by radar, only 83 were going faster than 45 mph.

They argued it made no sense to pass a law in hopes a small, inconsiderate group would change its habits.

Two years ago, the House passed a bill to impose limits on all lakes and rivers, but the Senate killed it.

[Airwaves]

I find it interesting that when I contacted Governor Lynch's office in mid-June asking what he was going to do about the bill his staff wrote back and said the bill had not reached his desk and that they wouldn't make a decision until it did.

June 25, a week and a half after the June 17th Diamond Island accident the governor tells the Union Leader he's going to sign it. That would lead me to believe, based on his staffer's comments, that it had arrived at his desk and he liked it.

July 7, Seven working days and 13 calendar days after the newspaper article, he signs it.

A couple of questions come to mind.

Since under NH law he has 5 days to sign or veto a bill after it reaches his desk, when did he get it? After all his staff said he wouldn't decide until it reached his desk and he's quoted on 6/25 as saying his decision had nothing to do with the Diamond Island accident.

Hmmmm?

[fatlazyless]

Wow....Airwaves....talk about being a regular Perry Mason! Without a doubt, the Governor's decision to sign HB 847 was based on SAFE BOATING and had nothing to do with any one individual boat accident.

By the way, did you know that Gov Lynch also signed a law, starting Jan 1, that requires drivers and passengers of snowmobiles & atv's, who are less than 18 years old, to wear helmets and eye protection.

NH is now the only state out of 50 which does not have a mandatory car/light truck seatbelt law for adults, 18 & older. All drivers of bigger trucks & buses, 12000lb gvw & up, are required to wear seatbelts by federal law.

As far as I know, there are no states which require seatbelts in recreational boats or jetskis.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As far as I know, there are no states which require seatbelts in recreational boats or jetskis.

Thank God for that! I may be the captain, but I don't want to literally go down with my ship.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...By the way, did you know that Gov Lynch also signed a law, starting Jan 1, that requires drivers and passengers of snowmobiles & atv's, who are less than 18 years old, to wear helmets and eye protection...

No, that's not what the Governor signed.

RSA 215-C:49 already required operators and passengers under 18 to wear head & eye protection for a number of years now.

What the Governor signed was an ammendment to this existing law that actually says the required head & eye protection must meet or exceed Federal standard FMVSS 218 (DOT certified).

Hope this clarifies the Governor's action.

Skip

[flyry49]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Wow....Airwaves....talk about being a regular Perry Mason! Without a doubt, the Governor's decision to sign HB 847 was based on SAFE BOATING and had nothing to do with any one individual boat accident.

safe boating? actually this bill has nothing to do with safe boating. there hasn't been any accidents during the day linked to speed. and all the ones where people we.re going fast were alcohol related. Lynch signed it because senate passed it. Lynch doesn't experience this lake, all he knows is what the media says, and we all know how inaccurate they can be. and when people complain about stupid issues like this speed limit he assumes maybe there is a problem. I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can. its funny how he claims to be cutting government spending and now hes going to invest into this nonsense

[EricP]

Originally Posted by flyry49

I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can.

As will I in November

[watrskir]

Originally Posted by EricP

As will I in November

I already started the campain

[Islander]

Originally Posted by flyry49

safe boating? actually this bill has nothing to do with safe boating. there hasn't been any accidents during the day linked to speed. and all the ones where people we.re going fast were alcohol related.

Except that isn't true is it.

There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol. You people keep repeating these lies over and over til you believe them yourself.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Except that isn't true is it.

There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol. You people keep repeating these lies over and over til you believe them yourself.

So 1 accident requires a law? Ridiculous....You people will never get it. There is no problem on the lake with speed. There are zillions of problems with safe passage violations. And accusing people of lying is insulting.

The Govenor needs to go, he probably hasn't been on the lake much and if he took the time to do that he'd know there's no speeding problem. I can't be represented by lazy people. He was either too lazy to see for himself or to lazy to check facts. Plus he's easily swayed by fear mongerers, not a quality I want in a leader.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have to disagree with you on one point. 2Blackdogs is not a member of "our side" of the debate. He has been a member of the forum for more than four years yet the majority of his posts have been about an accident that happened two weeks ago. And he NEVER posted about speed limits until two days AFTER the Senate passed HB847. He had nothing to say about speed limits until it was all over.

He is a member of the "accident speculation" movement, not the speed limit movement.

As the forums unofficial spokesperson for the pro speed limit side I declare that 2Blackdogs is not a member of our group.

Then we can agree to disagree.Are you telling me 2BD is not a supporter of the speed limit?Please.Pretty sad when neither side wants anything to do a member.Don't get me wrong though BI,I do not put him/her in the same group as you.As much as I disagree with a lot of your viewpoints,I don't see you sink to the same levels.You have also called out a certain member for being inappropriate for obvious reasons and I believe,because it was making the pro speed limit side look bad.That's how I saw it.

[Airwaves]

If I recall Skip's posting about the process correctly, and assuming the Governor had the bill on his desk when the Union Leader article reported that he will sign it, then the bill has to be signed by the end of the day today?

If not what happens? Is the legislature still in session, does it become law without his signature or is it a pocket veto?

I only suggest the governor had the bill on his desk at the time the UL article was published because I had contacted his office and they said it had not arrived and no decision would be made until it did.

I have not seen any AP or other story indicating that it has already been signed.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

"The Mod" seems to agree with you, 'cuz my replies are being delayed.

Since I don't want to offend your tender sensibilities too much in one post, I'll proceed very slowly with my rebuttals.

Just now, I found a second "idiot".



Note ye well the date. It was four days before your reply. And I have yet some more surprises for you, and for the forum at large on this issue.

Looks just like any of the posts here...one persons OPINION.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.

Congrats to your efforts. I truly hope this legislation does what you think it will do. NO, not chase GF-Boats off the lake but increase safety on the lake. It will be quite a while before we can assess the impact but time will certainly tell.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Islander

Congratulation to Sandy, BI and the crew at WinnFABS! You fought long and hard for the safety of the Winnipesaukee community.

This will open a new day, and a better lake for all.

How will we know at the conclusion of 2010 if the light traffic on the lake is due to fuel prices getting worse and the affordability of boats diminishing, or the speed limits preventing people from buying new boats or coming here? Regardless, traffic on the lake is less and less what it was only a few years ago.

[VtSteve]

Most every lake has seen slow traffic this year for some reason or another. Pretty calm and quiet here as well, with no speed limits.

[twoplustwo]

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.



Substitute elitism for safety, and you'd be right.

Yup, the only bad thing that ever happens on Squam is one of us manages the Where's Waldo search for a parking spot at the elusive and much fought over public boat launch and makes it onto their lake. Unless we have the right boat, the right clothes, and no one is silly enough to hop off the boat, take a swim and *gasp* have fun, you have to deal with the Preppy Handbook matrons looking down their sunglasses and their noses to let you know "We put a beach on High Haith for YOU people!" Makes me glad to be one of you people.

I'm all for safety, and think everyone should use the lake courteously be they on a boat, PWC, or on a beach somewhere. I just hope the cries of safety don't continue to shroud that Squammy elitism oozing out of some of 'those people' on Winni.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.



Substitute elitism for safety, and you'd be right.

Yup, the only bad thing that ever happens on Squam is one of us manages the Where's Waldo search for a parking spot at the elusive and much fought over public boat launch and makes it onto their lake. Unless we have the right boat, the right clothes, and no one is silly enough to hop off the boat, take a swim and *gasp* have fun, you have to deal with the Preppy Handbook matrons looking down their sunglasses and their noses to let you know "We put a beach on High Haith for YOU people!" Makes me glad to be one of you people.

I'm all for safety, and think everyone should use the lake courteously be they on a boat, PWC, or on a beach somewhere. I just hope the cries of safety don't continue to shroud that Squammy elitism oozing out of some of 'those people' on Winni.

I once overheard a story in a forum about a Kayaker that was swamped on Squam by a POWERBOAT

[RTTOOL]

WHAT IS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT..ON THE HB 847. LAW Section 2 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

WHAT IS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT..ON THE HB 847. LAW Section 2 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

(Section 2) 331:2 Repeal. RSA 270-D:2, X-XI, relative to speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, is repealed.

With no other action being taken beforehand, on 1/1/2011 the speed limits on Winni and the requirement that all violations under this section be reported to DMV will be repealed....This is what is known in the trade as a "sunset clause".

Skip

[John A. Birdsall]

You know, after reading the line of dribble in this thread I think the only thing that makes any sense is that Jet-Skies should have a law that requires them to wear seatbelts. Yup lets get that into law, oh yes waterproof helmets as well.

[NoBozo]

Hey Birdsall: I completely agree..however, I think a "Roll Cage" should be mandated as well. Remember a couple of decades ago when "WhatsHerFace"...I apologize for not remembering her name..suggested the same for motorcycles? WHO WAS That? She is still around. NoBozo

[Airwaves]

2Blackdogs wrote:
The Governor agrees.

Actually the only thing the governor agrees with is the removal of a campaign issue from the co-sponsor of this needless law in the wake of the Diamond Island accident.

So rather than do the right thing he took away a campaign issue from the senator who co-sponsored the bill, who was probably pandering for votes with the bill in the first place, who just happens to be running against the governor in the next election!

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

"Speed Limit Reality" has been in existence since proposal LSR430 in 2002, so the delays leading to the Diamond Island collision can only be laid at the feet of the opponents.

Any lawyer, like this Governor, would have reviewed all the relevant legislation proposed since Winnipesaukee's worst Hit & Run fatality. He would know of the existence of the mildest possible bill put forth in 2002 in response to a needless death. It was the very simple legislative proposal "25mph speed limit at-night-only". The proposal was titled LSR430, and sponsored by Representative Paul Hatch of Wolfeboro. The Governor would have reviewed correspondence put forth by both sides.

In response to this mildest of rules, a very long "open letter" to Rep Paul Hatch appeared at this Winni.com forum before you joined here. It began,

Mr. Hatch,

I feel the need to write this letter in opposition to your proposed legislation, LSR 430, imposing a 25mph nighttime speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. For the record, I am a permanent resident of Laconia and an avid boater on Lake Winnipesaukee. I strongly disagree with your proposed legislation for the following reasons.

1. Economic Impact: I do not think the economic impact of your proposal has been thoroughly examined. Many people who live on the Laconia/Meredith side of the lake would no longer frequent many establishments in Wolfeboro such as the WOLFETRAP
{snip}

While Wolfetrap played a role, there can be no question Diamond Island played the key role, as you state. I quoted Les Hall as saying that here, and I used even fewer words to say the same thing.

But the fault lies with those who stopped the mildest political response possible (LSR430) and, in a political response to a second needless death, received HR847 instead.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Actually the only thing the governor agrees with is the removal of a campaign issue from the co-sponsor of this needless law in the wake of the Diamond Island accident.

So rather than do the right thing he took away a campaign issue from the senator who co-sponsored the bill, who was probably pandering for votes with the bill in the first place, who just happens to be running against the governor in the next election!

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

I think there's more to it than political expediency. The bill was supported by his constituents (NH poll), passed by the house with a wide margin, then supported by the senate. He would have looked foolish had he vetoed this bill.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

I think there's more to it than political expediency. The bill was supported by his constituents (NH poll), passed by the house with a wide margin, then supported by the senate. He would have looked foolish had he vetoed this bill.

It would have indeed taken leadership to veto. The non-boating public would not have cared one way or the other. Those truly for increased safety would have applauded, especially if he stressed current rules and noted how limited MP funds would be better spent enforcing rules that matter. He would have lost some of the "lake is mine go away" -LIMGA- crowd, which unfortunately, knows how to play the political game.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

Except of course . . . as usual . . . that's NOT what he ACTUALLY said, is it?


"Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."

"Not the most egregious problem" is not at all the same as "Not necessary".

He was in fact quite correct. Boat speed is not the most egregious problem on the lake. However a speed limit changes the lake in a lot more ways than just slowing boats down.

[BroadHopper]

than just slowing boats down?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

What are the other ways than just slowing boats down?

Woodsy has predicted fewer performance boats will come to the lake due to the speed limit. Some have already left, some say they will never return.

The speed limit will impact the future boat purchasing choices of lake residents.

The speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the responsible boater, and makes Winni less desirable to the irresponsible boater.

Perhaps the lake reputation will change from a place for "thrill-seeking boaters" to a place for "family boaters".

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.



And none of these changes are Dependant on how many radar units the MP have, how many tickets they write, or how well those tickets stand up in court!

[BroadHopper]

The original Formula Hull the 233 has a long history of success as a rough water hull since 1962. In fact center consoles and fishing boats are made from the same hull.

1: Albemarle 242 - still in production today hull virtually identical.
2: Bluewater 2350 - still in production - hull virtually identical.
3: Contender 25 - older non-integrated bracket models
4: Cape Craft 23 - no longer in production
5: Eden 233: built in NZ http://www.edencraft.com.au/formula.html
6: Whitewater 25 - still in production

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


The speed limits proponents consider Formulas as performance boats.
So all these boats are considered GFBL boats? I'm confused????

[bigpatsfan]

Hello Bear Islander it is interesting how you equate the speed of a boat to being an irresponsible boater as if the mere fact that someone is going fast must mean they are irresponsible or dangerous.

If this true, then how do you explain that on land, the number of accidents and fatalities actually decreased when States increased their highway speeds. Some sates have no daytime speed limits others have between 65mph to 80mph speed limits. So on land if there is a correlation between safety and speed it is counter intuitive. Meaning that you are safer on the highway that is posted 65mph than you are on that very same highway when it is posted 55mph.

So on land, the mere fact you are going fast does not equate to being irresponsible or dangerous.

As for our lake there have been no fatalities related to speeding boats in the last ten years, twenty years… not sure when there was a fatality due to speeding. I am not sure how many accidents have been caused by boats going over 45mph. Not sure given the number of boats on the lake every year that any accident is statistically meaningful. Frankly, I am not sure that it really matters as the speed limit is here and once the State gets a taste of this revenue stream they will push speed limits on all lakes. States love money and speeding tickets are easy revenue sources.

So you are saying this is great… just what I wanted. But I say you missed part of the equation.

As a result of this speed limit, I agree with you that the Lake will become a very desirable place to boat.. Meaning the Lake will see more boats. What you think being “family friendly” will result in less boats. Does that make any sense. Really does it. Of course not. Family friendly will result in increased boaters.

So more boats will mean more boat traffic, more wakes. etc.

Face it, the speed limit law will actually have the exact opposite effect then what you were looking for.

Sometimes when you win, you actually lose.
or be careful what you ask for
either way, you did not think this thru.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

As for our lake there have been no fatalities related to speeding boats in the last ten years, twenty years… not sure when there was a fatality due to speeding.

In the history of Lake Winnipesaukee, the only speeding charge that could ever be written.....is for a fatal collision of 6+ mph.

Most collision fatalities are well beyond 6 mph, but remain unproven, untested, undocumented and uncorroborated for exact speed by the Marine Patrol because there's no other speeding STATUTE to support a speeding CHARGE!!!

Who here has seen a written speeding charge of 6+ mph in a fatal Winni collision?

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy has predicted fewer performance boats will come to the lake due to the speed limit. Some have already left, some say they will never return.

The speed limit will impact the future boat purchasing choices of lake residents.

The speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the responsible boater, and makes Winni less desirable to the irresponsible boater.

Perhaps the lake reputation will change from a place for "thrill-seeking boaters" to a place for "family boaters".

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.



And none of these changes are Dependant on how many radar units the MP have, how many tickets they write, or how well those tickets stand up in court!

Our experience at the lake last week was that many people have already slowed down, probably to get the most miles per gallon. We were among those who have slowed down.

We found a couple of offenses that decreased our boating pleasure. The first was the channel cloggers who would go barely above headway in the middle of the channel or who would start tubing or wake boarding in the middle of the channel, so they obviously weren't a speed issue. The second was the people who would overtake us and then cut across our bow as soon as they had the right of way. They just as easily could have passed us on the other side. They weren't going much faster than us, and we were doing 20-25 mph, so they too were not a speed issue. The only boat that overtook us and didn't cross our bow was a GFBL with one young guy and four bikini-clad women...if I were a guy, I think I'd want to be him.

By the way, crossing another boat's bow is considered an act of war in the Navy, so we're going to make sure we're well-armed next time. . And before someone goes nuts thinking I'm going to add a gun rack to the bow rider, I was kidding.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Anyway, bigger wakes from the increase in cruiser traffic won't make the lake more kayak friendly unless you have something like this in mind...



Who knows, maybe even surfing might become popular! I always wanted to try that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Coastal Laker

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

[CaptJP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

You're right on. I don't doubt they're the next target. There's a lot of folks in denial though! (me included) Can you imagine the Doris, Sophie or Mount getting booted off the lake?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by CaptJP

You're right on. I don't doubt they're the next target. There's a lot of folks in denial though! (me included) Can you imagine the Doris, Sophie or Mount getting booted off the lake?

They're too big anyway.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

They're too big anyway.

Scrap metal prices are up and the leftist liberals desire to break from the past...

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

you guys picked on a very small minority who didn't have a lot of people sticking up for them. it's hard to argue against "speed kills".

a size limit or a horse power limit will impact a significantly larger amount of boaters/marinas/businesses. i don't see that happening in the next 20 years. a sales tax and an income will have to happen first. it'd be hard to argue that nh wouldn't lose a significant amount of cash if you ended up kicking those boats off of your lake too.

[BroadHopper]

The proponents got their inch. Now they want the mile. The Winnipesaukee grapevine are loaded with the story that the next step is to convince the legislature that since the lake is a public water supply, it should be the next Massabesic. Limit the size of boats, limit horsepower. You can't stick a finger in it let alone swim.

As a waterfront property owner, the big cruisers are my biggest fear. There is enough erosion on my shore. I voted against the speed limit because of the 25 at night limit. Big wakes at that speed.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

you guys picked on a very small minority who didn't have a lot of people sticking up for them. it's hard to argue against "speed kills".

a size limit or a horse power limit will impact a significantly larger amount of boaters/marinas/businesses. i don't see that happening in the next 20 years. a sales tax and an income will have to happen first. it'd be hard to argue that nh wouldn't lose a significant amount of cash if you ended up kicking those boats off of your lake too.

The legislation being written will allow for a long period before full enactment and/or grandfather status for boats already on lake Winnipesaukee.

So there will be no big impact to marinas or businesses. In fact very little will change except the number of big cruisers will not increase. Over time they will go away through attrition.

I have no idea why you would think we need a sales and income tax before we can have a horsepower limit. Apples and orange juice. Anyway 500 HP is more than enough on a this lake.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

The legislation being written will allow for a long period before full enactment and/or grandfather status for boats already on lake Winnipesaukee.

So there will be no big impact to marinas or businesses. In fact very little will change except the number of big cruisers will not increase. Over time they will go away through attrition.

I have no idea why you would think we need a sales and income tax before we can have a horsepower limit. Apples and orange juice. Anyway 500 HP is more than enough on a this lake.

Did I miss something again? Is there more legislation coming?

[bigpatsfan]

So 500HP is more than enough but 502HP is not. So if I have two or three engines do I combined their HP to see if it is too much power. Also, where do I measure this HP, at the prop, the outdrive, at the crankshaft??? Drawing a line and saying anything under this line is okay but anything over this line is not okay is very disturbing.

As for where are the big boats going to dock…you have got to be kidding me. Do you travel the lake at all? Big boats go with big homes which by the way seem to have two to three boats each. There is plenty of undeveloped land still available on this lake and given what has been going in I do not see the State limiting how many docks they can build (Have you not seen the home that the French President stayed at last year… many docks and a huge three berth boathouse). If the market demands it then, marinas will add dock space to accommodate larger boats This is a free market society, which makes it difficult for a State to limit business ability to make money. So they keep the same number of docks but put bigger boats in them and move the smaller boats to an in/out service.

Kayakers and power boaters have co-existed for longer than all of us have been alive so why the kayakers want to make this an us versus them or a David vs. Golith just doesn’t make sense.

Give me a reason why you believe that now with the lake being safer, why the total number of boats on the lake will diminish?? If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost. If the total number of boats on the lake does diminish then you won… don’t see that happening.. family friendly means more boats.

Oh yea, know one knows how many boats are on the lake… there is no easy way to determine this as people register their boats throughout the State not just in Laconia. So this talk about grandfathering…. Just a bunch of

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

So 500HP is more than enough but 502HP is not. So if I have two or three engines do I combined their HP to see if it is too much power. Also, where do I measure this HP, at the prop, the outdrive, at the crankshaft??? Drawing a line and saying anything under this line is okay but anything over this line is not okay is very disturbing.

As for where are the big boats going to dock…you have got to be kidding me. Do you travel the lake at all? Big boats go with big homes which by the way seem to have two to three boats each. There is plenty of undeveloped land still available on this lake and given what has been going in I do not see the State limiting how many docks they can build (Have you not seen the home that the French President stayed at last year… many docks and a huge three berth boathouse). If the market demands it then, marinas will add dock space to accommodate larger boats This is a free market society, which makes it difficult for a State to limit business ability to make money. So they keep the same number of docks but put bigger boats in them and move the smaller boats to an in/out service.

Kayakers and power boaters have co-existed for longer than all of us have been alive so why the kayakers want to make this an us versus them or a David vs. Golith just doesn’t make sense.

Give me a reason why you believe that now with the lake being safer, why the total number of boats on the lake will diminish?? If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost. If the total number of boats on the lake does diminish then you won… don’t see that happening.. family friendly means more boats.

Oh yea, know one knows how many boats are on the lake… there is no easy way to determine this as people register their boats throughout the State not just in Laconia. So this talk about grandfathering…. Just a bunch of

Horsepower limits are in place and working on lakes and ponds across New Hampshire and across the country.

Where is all this undeveloped shore front you are talking about? The are a few undeveloped lots here and there. But those long stretches of undeveloped shore you see from your boat are conservation land. They can't be developed.

The State ALREADY limits how many slips you can have on private land based on a frontage formula.

Marinas WILL NOT be adding any docks. The State allows a marina to have only one slip for every 25 feet of lake frontage. Virtually all marinas have more than that and depend on their grandfather status. Therefore a marina can not add a slip or change their dock space. Not even by one inch.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost.

not so bigpatsfan... you have to look at the impact of different kinds of boats on the lake and those who use it. Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone. I'd take 100 of the latter over 1 of the former. Now a few months ago there were vehement arguments by the no limits crowd that HB 847 would negatively impact or even destroy the lake's region economy. Now we're hearing the "you won but you lost argument" that there will be more boats on the lake. Make up your mind!

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Did I miss something again? Is there more legislation coming?

VSteve, See the reply I posted earlier. They want Winnipesaukee to have the same restrictions as lake Massibesic.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Coastal Laker

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Anyway, bigger wakes from the increase in cruiser traffic won't make the lake more kayak friendly unless you have something like this in mind...

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all?...

Simple.

Because folks still have a right to choose how they spend their discretionary income, and are free within reason to pursue pastimes that they enjoy. A very good friend of mine has just purchased a 38' Egg Harbor Cruiser, and is actually excited at the prospect of filling the two 150 gallon diesel tanks tonight in anticipation of us sailing her down from her current berth in Portland to our marina in Dover later this week.

It's a dream he has pursued and saved for, for many years.

Maybe someday you'll take a class that explains one of these basic traits of human behavior????

[tis]

All these limits! Who does this lake belong to anyway? We keep saying "the state of NH". Who is that? It is us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do we have no right to keep using the lake we own and pay for without all kind of restrictions that a vocal few want?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by tis

All these limits! Who does this lake belong to anyway? We keep saying "the state of NH". Who is that? It is us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do we have no right to keep using the lake we own and pay for without all kind of restrictions that a vocal few want?

Only 9% of New Hampshire voters were opposed to a speed limit. The "vocal few" only brought the problem to the legislature, the people of New Hampshire supported it and passed it. Please remember that BOTH candidates for Governor, Democrat and Republican, supported it.

The arguments against the big cruisers are actually better than the arguments for a speed limit. The damage done by their large wakes is well documented and almost undeniable. The lake is a municipal water supply. Erosion is a serious problem.

I can't see that the tourism issue will help the cruisers. Not many people are trailering in their Carvers for a Winnipesaukee vacation.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Only 9% of New Hampshire voters were opposed to a speed limit.

Are you dreaming!!

Where did you get this data?

More spin and embelishment. Looks to me like you folks are on to step two in your plan. Watch out cruiser owners!

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Are you dreaming!!

Where did you get this data?

More spin and embelishment. Looks to me like you folks are on to step two in your plan. Watch out cruiser owners!

R2B

It's the same poll we have been talking about in this forum for a couple of years. I'm surprised you have not heard about it.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Christie,
NH Lakes Association
(603) 226-0299


NEW STATEWIDE POLL INDICATES STRONG SUPPORT FOR 45 MPH DAYTIME /25 MPH
NIGHTTIME SPEED LIMITS ON STATE’S PUBLIC WATERS

Concord, NH (February 16, 2006) – According to a recent poll of New Hampshire
registered voters, 63 percent favor a state law that would place a 45 mph
daytime and a 25 mph nighttime speed limit on all inland public waters – lakes,
ponds and rivers. Only 9% opposed the idea. The study was commissioned by
the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a statewide, non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect the Public Trust, and conducted by the American Research
Group of Manchester, NH...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Skip

Maybe someday you'll take a class that explains one of these basic traits of human behavior????

Ya know, you guys are going to insult me no matter what I post in this forum. I was attempting to add to the humor in Coastal Laker's post. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Skip, I understand human behavior just fine and have taken classes on it - after all, I am a Poly-Sci major. Dreams are great, but that doesn't mean you can't be somewhat flexible with your dreams. When times change and situations change, you have to learn to adapt. We all have to make concessions in life. I've certainly had to give up my own share of dreams.

[TiltonBB]

Skip, I understand human behavior just fine and have taken classes on it - after all, I am a Poly-Sci major. Dreams are great, but that doesn't mean you can't be somewhat flexible with your dreams. When times change and situations change, you have to learn to adapt. We all have to make concessions in life. I've certainly had to give up my own share of dreams.[/QUOTE]

So if you are comfortable in a large cruiser, and you can afford a large cruiser, and you and your family and friends enjoy your days on the lake or at the dock......Why not?
No need to "adapt" No need to "make concessions" You are comfortable right where you are!
Enjoy life and the benefits you have earned by working hard and being financially secure! (Watch out for the little people in the kayaks as you use the lake like it was meant to be used.)
We don't need to revert to the stone age to keep a small minority happy. Soon enough they will find out that the speed limit makes no safety difference on the lake and only increases wakes and shore line erosion. It will actually make he lake less safe for people in small boats (and kayaks) less than 23 feet.
It is a totally "feel good" liberal left wing type of law.

[Evenstar]

We don't need to revert to the stone age to keep a small minority happy. Soon enough they will find out that the speed limit makes no safety difference on the lake and only increases wakes and shore line erosion. It will actually make he lake less safe for people in small boats (and kayaks) less than 23 feet. It is a totally "feel good" liberal left wing type of law.

The anti-speed limit crowd keeps stating that the speed limit is something that "a small minority" wanted, yet no one ever offers any proof for that statement. Whereas polls actually show that a large majority of NH residents were in favor of the speed limit bill. And most residents that I've talked with personally are in support of speed limit.

I supported the lake speed limit totally because of safety concerns - which I have personally experienced. But I have never been a supporter of forcing any type of boat off the lake. I've kayaked on Squam for years - it is the 2nd largest lake in NH and it has a 40 mph speed limit. The wakes on Squam are not any bigger than the wakes on Winni - in fact I've experienced larger wakes on Winni. And I do not feel unsafe in my 16 foot sea kayak on Squam.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

There's some really good deals on big boats right now. Even with the price of gas costing people an extra $50-$150 a weekend compared to two years ago, it's a vastly cheaper way to get a "weekend place" at the lake than buying a lake house. They don't use much gas at the dock or at anchor, and there's plenty of dock space available too. Honestly, I can't think of a better time to buy a big cruiser, if you've got the means. If I didn't mind being stuck on one lake, I'd consider getting a big cruiser. I can't say Manitou did not catch my eye...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

There's some really good deals on big boats right now. Even with the price of gas costing people an extra $50-$150 a weekend compared to two years ago, it's a vastly cheaper way to get a "weekend place" at the lake than buying a lake house. They don't use much gas at the dock or at anchor, and there's plenty of dock space available too. Honestly, I can't think of a better time to buy a big cruiser, if you've got the means. If I didn't mind being stuck on one lake, I'd consider getting a big cruiser. I can't say Manitou did not catch my eye...

Anyone that paid for lake real estate, not to mention the taxes, might understand the financial attraction. Heck, I thought of buying Ron's Glastron mini cruiser just for that purpose. I'd keep a boat over on Winni just for weekend wave making

[bigpatsfan]

What does it matter what an opinion poll says.

If you were to ask people if lowering the speed limit on highways would save lives I am sure the answer would be “yes”. But the real answer is “no”.

The role of the government is to see past perceptions and see the truth for what it is. They failed us here.

Bear Islander you and the other speed limit supporters never looked at the true results of your actions.

As stated many times, the speed limit law will do nothing to improve boating safety and in fact there is a very good argument that the increased number of boats that will be boating on “Family Friendly” Lake Winnipesaukee will actually reduce boating safety.

The makeup of people moving to Lake Winnipesaukee is changing. Do you really believe that the people building a $3M home, paying $40k in real estate taxes care about the cost of gas or the size of their boat Given the wealth of these people we can expect them to have influence on our elected officials. So I don’t see any additional laws limiting boating. What I do see are more boats on the lake and as a result of these mansions being built I am sure we will see more and more larger boats on the Lake which is a trend started 30 years ago. (compare the average boat size in 1978 and the average boat size in 2008)

I enjoying kayaking on the Lake and I miss the good old days but I do realize that you cannot turn the clock back. And what has me most upset is that the pro-speed limit people can not see is that their actions will dramatically increase the trends of the past thirty years…. More and more boats and larger and larger boats.

[VtSteve]

Boating surely has changed. I've seen GFBL boaters looking at cruisers, pontoon boats have sold better than anything else. If I wanted to reside on a quiet lake, do the nature and small camp thing, fish, I'd not do it on a big lake. Smaller boats on big lakes have issues. As I told my dad over twenty years ago, there's a reason that Winni boaters were trending towards bigger boats. Self-defense and big wakes. Sure there's the more room bit, plus trying to take a twenty mile cruise on a busy lake in a 20' boat can be quite slow, and very bumpy. That's how the GF crowd got started on Winni in the first place.

There are plenty of lakes here in Vermont to do the small boat thing, many are very quiet, offer great fishing, perfect for kayaking, rowing, canoes, even 12' aluminum boats do quite well. If I had any of those boats, I'd rarely, if ever, venture out into Lake Champlain. On a very congested lake like Winni, I'd never do it. I don't think you can turn a larger lake into a smaller one, which is a vision some folks have in mind.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

What does it matter what an opinion poll says.
If you were to ask people if lowering the speed limit on highways would save lives I am sure the answer would be “yes”. But the real answer is “no”.

Actually there's data that supports both that it does and it doesn't. It's just not conclusive. One area where the data seems to be conclusive is that the difference in speeds between vehicles has a direct relationship between the number of accidents. That, to me, is one of the main arguments for enacting a lake speed limit.

The role of the government is to see past perceptions and see the truth for what it is. They failed us here.

The truth (as I see it) is that allowing boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes is very dangerous. The legislature did not fail NH residents in enacting this law.

Bear Islander you and the other speed limit supporters never looked at the true results of your actions.

And how do you know that? I've posted many times that I kayak a great deal on Squam. Squam has had a 40 mph speed limit for years, yet the wakes are not larger on Squam and the boats are not bigger on Squam.

As stated many times, the speed limit law will do nothing to improve boating safety and in fact there is a very good argument that the increased number of boats that will be boating on “Family Friendly” Lake Winnipesaukee will actually reduce boating safety.

With all else being equal, the fact is that slower is safer - so your statement is wrong. And I've never seen any evidence that a speed limit increases the number of boats on a lake.

I enjoying kayaking on the Lake and I miss the good old days but I do realize that you cannot turn the clock back. And what has me most upset is that the pro-speed limit people can not see is that their actions will dramatically increase the trends of the past thirty years…. More and more boats and larger and larger boats.

No, but you can draw the line on how fast boats are allowed to travel. Again, there's no evidence that what you state will happen. And, even if it does happen - that is a separate issue, and as such, can be dealt with through specific regulations.

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg

It is really quite simple. Not all of us are consumed by the price of fuel. Sure I would rather pay 1.50 a gallon. I am sure that those in Europe are wishing that they could have our fuel prices even what they are today. When fuel was 1.50 a gallon I could not afford to fill up my boat. Today with fuel at over 4.00 a gallon I have no problem paying to fill up my boat. The problem that I have is finding the time to not be working and use the thing. Last I checked fuel is STILL the cheapest part of owning a boat.

[twoplustwo]

Apples and oranges.

I've posted many times that I kayak a great deal on Squam. Squam has had a 40 mph speed limit for years, yet the wakes are not larger on Squam and the boats are not bigger on Squam.

That's because they've made it so hard to get on Squam. One furiously fought public boat launch with lousy parking hardly compares to the veritable cornucopia of public launches on Winni. If you don't own there, they don't want you there. Where some of the new money is concerned, they don't want them there, either.

Speed limits don't keep boats off of Squam. The SLA keeps boats off of Squam.

[Bear Islander]

When the speed limit was first proposed many people thought it had zero chance of ever being enacted. Many members here were vocal that it would never, never pass. I am hearing the exact same thing now about big cruisers.

There will be no dramatic increase in the number of big cruisers, because there is no place to dock them. There are slips available now because of the economy, but when they are gone, that is it.

Winnipesaukee marinas have far more slips than the law allows at this time. They can keep them because they are grandfathered. They can't rebuild the docks for larger boats or increase the number of slips.

You can't rent or lease a mooring, so the only way to add a cruiser slip is to buy or rent private property.

[Little Bear]

I travel to work by boat early morning (7:30 am or so) and park my boat in one of the marinas in Saunder's Cove. On several occasions the water has been flat calm, no other boats, not many distractions. Also on several occasions, I've not seen kayaks until I'm within about 100 yards or so. I train my eye now to look at the shoreline when entering Saunder's Bay to look for something moving. Again, this is a weekday, early morning, no other traffic. Are these kayakers nuts or what? They have dull, earth tone kayaks, they sit low in the water and provide nothing at all that gives them additional visibility to boaters. Oh, by the way, I travel at around 27 MPH, so I'm not going fast. In addition, I have 20/20 eyesight, so that's not a problem. The problem is that these kayakers seem to think that they are invincible and that they have inalienable rights to be on the lake, any place at any time. Now I have no problem with them out in Saunder's Bay early morning weekdays, but these kayakers that think they should be out in mid-day, heavy traffic on the weekends, need their heads examined. With heavy boat traffic and boat chop it's nearly impossible to see these kayakers. We should enact some kind of law that 1) mandates some device or color that enhances their visibility to other boaters, and 2) restrict the time and location where these kayaks can operate. In my opinion, the simple fact that any of these kayakers choose to operate in congested areas during heavy traffic, tells me they are only there to cause trouble. Time to call our state reps that are so concerned about everyone's safety and have them address this real safety issue. I'm sending a letter to the Governor about this today or tomorrow.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

... The problem is that these kayakers seem to think that they are invincible and that they have inalienable rights to be on the lake, any place at any time...

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

Their inalienable rights require proper navigation lights between 1/2 hour before sunset to 1/2 hour after sunrise, if I recall correctly. I have never seen a kayak so equipped, but I suppose they could be installed. At this time of year that's between ~8p and 6a..

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

They do????? Where is this spelled out?

[Silver Duck]

I'm gonna make history here, and side strongly with Bear Islander on this one.

Kayaks have the exact same rights as any other type of boat. NH law makes it very clear that the public is to have unrestricted access to the larger lakes, and does not differentiate between paddle craft, sail boats, or motor boats in that right to access.

Though considering how many snapped off Navaids I've seen lately , if I owned a dull collored kayak and wanted to use it on Winni I'd for sure grab a can of dayglo orange spray paint and take care of business before going out!

Silver Duck

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

They do????? Where is this spelled out?

A kayak falls under the definition of both "boat" and "vessel" in NH law:

TITLE XXII - NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY - CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS

Section 270-D:1 Definitions:

I. "Boat'' means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.

XI. "Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.

So kayaks have the exact same rights to be on any part of NH lakes as any boat - at any time of day (as long as they meet the non-daylight lighting regulations).

Boat color is up to the owner. When I bought my kayak I bought the brightest color available - and I bought paddles that had bright orange blades. Paddle blades are often the first thing you see, since they extend higher than anything else and because they are generally in motion.

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

Because I live in a busy section of Ossipee Lake and I let my 8 year old paddle alone I bought him a day glow orange kayak for the visibility and his life jacket is yellow. I have to say I see way to many dark blue or green kayaks in the evening and they are far too hard to see even at slow speeds

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

They do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.

If you think you will ever get a law passed that will limit kayaks to keep them out of the way of power boats, then you are dreaming. If boats and kayaks can't co-exist on Saunders Bay then perhaps a NWZ is needed.

A regulation requiring them to have flags or some other conspicuity device is a good idea. Personally I think wearing a navy blue life jacket in a navy blue kayak is insane.

The same way you were dreaming when you conjured up the phony need for a speed limit? Dreams do come true, you know. I have a dream...If safety was really the agenda, then it would seem to me that the state reps and senators would jump at the chance to legislate more laws to ensure the safety of kayakers, by way of restricting where they can travel on the lake and what addtional safety/visibility devices that they must have. I hear complaints about safety flags impeding the kayaker's ability to recover from an overturned kayak. It would seem to me that a simple release handle would free the flag from the kayak, thereby removing any problems. The flag would just float and the kayaker would just pick it up and re-attach it to the kayak. Why are kayaker's so opposed to increasing their visibility to powerboats? Why should kayaks take priority over powerboats? On what basis? Why aren't bicycles allowed on Route 93? If bikes and cars can't co-exist on Route 93, then perhaps a 10mph speed limit on Route 93 is in order. Bikes are restricted from certain roads and kayaks should be restricted from certain parts of the lake at certain times. Same analogy in my opinion, and the foundation on which a case should be made to the Legislature and Governor.