New Boaters Organization

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by frank m.

We look forward to the May 6 strategy session with Director Barrett

What is this "May 6 strategy session"? What time? Where? Is anyone invited?

[codeman671]

Frank, you are correct in that Director Barrett is an intelligent person. I know him personally. Actually I am somewhat related. But don't you think that he is well aware of how the two accidents in question are filed??? I am sure he had something to do it! I am sure he has looked at them plenty of times and was directly involved on the investigations...If only 2 serious accidents are related to speed how many that you are not mentioning are not related to excessive speed (if in fact that was the ultimate cause of these two)? Plenty I am sure.

[winnilaker]

Frank, as you saw in our NHRBA forum. I will fight for all to be heard.

My post in that forum for others to know what I mean.

From NHRBA's forum:
Frank is entitled to his views. I went out of way to inform people on winn' forum that all are welcome. I won't support an org that is any other way
.....
I know there is emotion, but thoughtout approaches and communication on how to build NHRBA is more important. Can everyone agree on this vision with me?

Thanks,
Custie


P.S. sorry I was away on a business trip, and I wanted to take a vacation next week. What will happen then?

[frank m.]

Custie,
Thanks. I hope that those who seem to want to spend their time bashing me instead of working with me will now let it go. My concerns for loons and eagles and opposition to swim raft permitting don't seem to be reasons to disqualify me from your group. I hope I will not need to defend those positions anymore.

Additionally, it makes it hard for me to work with guys like Moose (#482), when he posts stuff like this about me on the other offshore forum;
"One of the speed limit people (Frank m) just posted on the other site. Seems he wants to and has joined the good guys (www.nhrba.com) and get this, he want's to attend a meeting they (NHRBA) are scheduling with marine patrol BUT he does not want anyone who is not a New Hampshire citizen to be allowed to participate or be allowed to discuss the boating issues on Lake Winnipesaukee!!! These folks just continue to dig their hole deeper with this over the top attitude. I LOVE IT!!! You gotta read it for yourself, I am still laughing....................."

Thanks for your help.
If I can convince them that it would be constructive and not confrontational, would you be interested in speaking at the next Winnfabs meeting?
Frank

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by frank m.

...it makes it hard for me to work with guys like Moose, when he posts stuff like this about me on the other offshore forum...would you be interested in speaking at the next Winnfabs meeting?
Frank

You know, I come here to read about exciting events and occurences involving other members of the Winnipesaukee.com community. If I want to read about "Moose" and the goings on at offshore sites or the Winnfab group, I'll navigate there on my own, thank you.

Can we focus back on what goes on here, not there?

Of course, your appetite may vary.

Bon Apetit!

[overlook]

To the best of my knowledge, the meeting was set to introduce Director Barret to the organization. He will have more to say to NHBRA and they will listen. It was not to discuss possible HBs. NHBRA is young and your opinion is part of it, it is too early for NHBRA to discuss proposals. Remember there are 100,000 boats reg. in NH, probably 1/2 boat on Winni. witch is significant, but that leaves 50,000 boaters that have ther own issues. Boating safety is the main objective, and if the meeting turns into a discusson forum simmular to the ones we find on this forum it would be counter productive.

[MAXUM]

Welp I think that a speed limit is coming. Yell and scream all you want, there is an increasing number of boaters that either don't care, are to irresponsible or are just plain idiots piloting boats out there (of all sizes, makes brands etc...). Now compound the problem with the increased traffic. Right now the MP has rules that can be enforced such as inappropriate operation that is considered dangerious, however that is subject to opinion which makes it difficult to site and argue in court. Having something such as a speed limit now enables the MP to make a more cut and dry case. I personally think that this is way overdue. Boat manufacturers are making more powerful boats which just entices the operator to light it up and go. Unfortunatly this is a judgement call of the operator and is tough to legislate, however some deterrant needs to be put in place. It's no different IMHO than the speed limits on the road (which still get ignored), however there is a speeding ticket hanging over your head should you get caught.

I also beg to differ on the premise that speed is not a common factor in most accidents on the lake, it's really tough to screw something up at headway speed. Granted even at 20 MPH people could get killed, but the chances increase substantially as that increases to 45+ MPH, especailly with no brakes.

I'm in agreement with most in that the boater education is a joke here. Trouble is the cost of creating a more comprehensive course is going to be huge and probably will not to much more in the way of making the lake any safer.

I do think that attempting in any way to restrict boat access to the lake is a dangerious precedient to set and opens the door to cutting off public access all together... I pay far to much in taxes to this state, I'll be d*mned if somebody says I can't put my boat on a lake in my own state, ESPECAILLY if the lake is over run with out of staters.

My final comments on this little rant is that it is sad that new laws have to hit the books however something has to be done. There are far to many with 0 brains and 0 common sense. The funny thing is they have 0 cule they are the ones at fault too. UH - DUH!

Hope you all have a good and safe boating season.

[Fat Jack]

Good post Resteraunter,
"Whine with that cheese"? That's classic. I had thought you might be some sort of investigative reporter based on your earlier posts, but now I realize that you must be a poet.

Originally Posted by restauranteer

I'll navigate there on my own, thank you.

Please do. We'll miss you.

Now, can someone please fill us in on this secret May 6 meeting with Director Barrett? I want to be there. What time and where? Is he joining the anti-safety group and having private meetings with them now to discuss strategy for preventing the speed limit? Will they also be discussing ways to legalize DWI and to stave off the enactment of any other safety regulations? Are the people he is meeting with NH residents and taxpayers like me who pay his salary or are is it only for the guys from Florida?
This is all pretty shocking to me, that OUR highest sitting public "safety" official would be meeting privately with a bunch of non-residents about how they can work together to fight a safety law that was designed to protect the citizens who pay his salary. Is this in his job description? Am I the only one appauled by this?

Of course, your appetite may vary.
Bon Apetit!

[BroadHopper]

Well done. Woodsy. I can't do a better job of explaining what is needed. I have joined nhrba and I think it is a fine group.

[Fat Jack]

I felt his message was pretty clearly biased and filled with untruths;

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The smaller guys seem to have an attitude

A blatant generalization.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

JetSki owners.....really don't care too much about rules & regulations

Even more blatant (although I tend to agree in many cases).

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The Landowners ... all have opinions that relate directly to ownership of property around the lake.

Another generalization. Aren't some of the NHRBA members also landowners? But then, why wouldn't landowners have opinions that relate to their property? Should anyone be unopinionated about his property rights?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

However, no one is entitled to restrict another persons pusuit of happiness.

Isn't that the very point of HB162? Isn't it about letting the less dominant masses pursue their happiness on the lake too, in safety?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The speed limit on the highway is 65mph in SOME spots. I don't think there is anyplace in the country you can exceed 75mph. However, every car sold in this country is capable of exceeding the speed limit by a large margin.

Why can't this also be the same on the lake? Especially when one considers the fact that the lake has no lane markers and no safety signs, and boats have no brakes, no blinkers, and no headlights.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All of these vehicles, when driven properly provide safe, fun transportation and entertainment. They key is when DRIVEN PROPERLY! Its not so much the car or boat, but it is the manner in which it is operated!

Exactly the point of HB162. I agree fully that the operative word here is "properly". Now let's just define "properly". How can it be "proper" driving to go 100MPH on a crowded freshwater lake?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

a Speed Limit on Winnipesaukee is not a solution to any of the issues on the lake. It really only affects the go-fast boaters,

You don't think a speed limit will effect the guys who would like to be out there in canoes, sailboats, runabouts, and trolling boats too? Then why are they fighting for one?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

At the hearing, the chief officer in charge of the Marine Patrol spoke AGAINST a speed limit, citing among other reasons, the lack of any empirical or statistical data showing speed was a consistent factor in boating accidents on the lake, the logistics of enforcing the limit, not limited to but including, costs in upgrading equipment (a simple police radar will not work there is a whole list of techinical reasons but I will save that for another post), increased manpower, and the new certificate program now in place.

He also said that there is no speed too fast for this crowded lake. Doesn't this outrage anyone else but me? That our top marine safety official is advocating AGAINST safety? Doesn't this just expose him? Doesn't this just tell everyone what his real agenda is? When you speak to any of his equals around the country, you feel a respect for the dangers of high speed and a recognition for the need to regulate it. You sense a desire to get out there and keep people safe. When you speak to Barrett, you just come away wondering how this guy got into this positon. You feel like he just wants to be left alone. Is this really the person we want guarding our safety on this already-dangerous lake? Instead of complaining about not having enough equipment or men or money to keep us safe, shouldn't he be fighting for those things in Concord? Instead of advocating against safety regulations, shouldn't he be advocating for the things he needs to do his job right? I feel that this is the biggest question to come out of all of this. Perhaps HB162 will finally get us the changes we need, not only to the laws, but in Glendale.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Lake George is nothing like Winnipesaukee. First off, most of the shoreline and all of the islands are owned by the State of NY.

This a blatantly untrue. Why would you feel the need to make a misstatement like this? Lake George is 32 miles long, encompasses three counties, eight towns and several villages. over 90% of its shore is privately owned (although I fail to see the relevance). What lake in the Northeast is more like Winnipesaukee?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There are very few private residences on the water as compared to Winnipesaukee!

This is even more untrue. Again, why would you feel the need to make a misstatement like this? Have you ever been to Lake George?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The speed limit on Lake George is not enforced, although it is on the books, and is mostly cited in cases where alcohol intoxication and boating have mixed poorly.

This flies right in the face of the statements of their Director of Marine Safety, who claims that the law is "highly enforceable", "avidly enforced" and "convictions are the norm". This is also what makes Barrett's statements and position so curious. Have you spoken with any of the NY officials, or did you just make this up?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We have enough rules and regulations on the books now. We need better driver education, and better enforcement of existing rules regarding boating safety.

In other words, you are saying that everything is just fine, and we need nothing. When was the last time you tried to use a sailfish, go waterskiing, or troll for trout on this lake?

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack....

My message was meant to be somewhat tongue & cheek, when I was describing the different types of boatowners. Sorry it is impossible for you to see some of the humour. You obviously feel pretty passionate about the speed limit, too bad your so sorely closed minded.

"Isn't that the very point of HB162? Isn't it about letting the less dominant masses pursue their happiness on the lake too, in safety?"

The owners of go-fast boats are in the minority. Go-Fast boats are an extremely small percentage of the boats that use Winni every summer. Just because a boat has thru hull exhaust doesn't make it a go-fast boat. They may sound fast but the reality is there are very, very few boats on Winni who can top 70mph. Less and less as the speeds increase. There are far more accidents and incidents concerning family runabouts and operator ineptitude. To the best of my knowledge there have been NO accidents where speed was the major factor. NONE - ZIP - ZERO.

"Why can't this also be the same on the lake? Especially when one considers the fact that the lake has no lane markers and no safety signs, and boats have no brakes, no blinkers, and no headlights. "

Boats are NOT cars, and are not subject to the same rules and regulations. I am sure no one would like to see lane markers, safety signs, on the lake and blinkers and headlights are illegal on boats!

"Exactly the point of HB162. I agree fully that the operative word here is "properly". Now let's just define "properly". How can it be "proper" driving to go 100MPH on a crowded freshwater lake?"

Define crowded? Why does freshwater have anything to do with it? When have you ever seen a boat run 100mph except maybe a race boat?

"You don't think a speed limit will effect the guys who would like to be out there in canoes, sailboats, runabouts, and trolling boats too? Then why are they fighting for one?"

A speed limit doesn't put any sort of restriction on how they choose to enjoy the lake. It does however put a restriction on how a small minority of people choose to enjoy the lake. If the go-fast boaters were a majority, and wanted to place restrictions on sailboats or kayakers, you can bet they would be up in arms fighting for there right to use the lake in a manner they see fit. Your arguments border on ridiculous!

"This is even more untrue. Again, why would you feel the need to make a misstatement like this? Have you ever been to Lake George?"

I go to Lake George on average twice a year and get this... I actually BOAT on Lake George. Have you? Or do you you just quote snippets and alleged facts you swipe off the internet?

It is nothing like Winni at all, with the exception of its beauty. You have to buy a pass to put your boat on Lake George, be it a seasonal one or a weekend one. Almost all of the islands on Lake George are owned by the state and can be rented from the state for camping or gatherings. There are alot of private residences, but no where near the number of private residences along the shoreline as we have here on Winni, where the state owns essentially no land. I have personally witnessed a 160mph run by a race boat testing on Lake George. Guess what? No ticket, no speed enforcement, no anything. I have witnessed Poker Runs on Lake George that easily exceeded the 45mph limit... by 35-40 boats, guess what? No tickets were issued, nobody was stopped. Get this.... They don't have a 150' rule.... I could blow by you 6' from your gunwale at 45mph and do nothing illegal! I talked with several of thier enforcement officers (Not sure if they are MP like it is here or regular police, they were on a patrol craft) and they were the ones that told me they very rarely issue a speed only citation, Most citations are for some type of stupid behavior other than excessive speed, most often alcohol.

"In other words, you are saying that everything is just fine, and we need nothing. When was the last time you tried to use a sailfish, go waterskiing, or troll for trout on this lake?"

I will be trolling for trout & salmon during the Spring Derby, and some early mornings during the summer. I waterskiied last year over towards Braun Bay, although I fell a few times and realized I am getting a little old, it was fun! I don't sail, mainly because in my previous attempts I have capsized the boat alot due to lack of skill!

There is more than enough Lake for everyone to enjoy..... be they sailors, kayakers, waterskiiers, or powerboaters!

Minds are like a parachute.... they only work when opened!

Woodsy

[PROPELLER]

Woodsy makes many good points in my opinion. Fat Jack says that Lake Georges speed limit is enforced & its working. Frank M has also said this in past posts. I will ask this question, what else would you expect the person in charge of marine safety on Lake George to say? That he & his officers are unable to enforce the law, that the speed limit is useless. Of course they are not going to admit that. I do not believe everything I read & no one else should either.

I also think how different people perceive things differently is also a problem. It has been said by some posters that Winni is crowded. Everyones definition of crowded is different. Personally I do not think Winni is crowded when compared to other areas I have boated. I grew up boating on the ocean, the Northshore of Mass in the Salem, Beverly, Marblehead area. In my opinion it is more crowded & more dangerous than Winni is. There is no Marine Patrol at all, there is no 150' regulation. I have been on Winni many weekends during prime time(July & August) when the broads are wide open with very little traffic, sometimes even no traffic. I guarantee you would not see that around Misery Island or off of West Beach on the Northshore.

Another perception problem is how fast some think boats are going on the lake or how close boats get to other boats. Many people have no clue what 150' looks like or how fast 80, 90 or 100 mph looks like. I am pretty certain that 99.9% of the boats on Winni are not going these speeds & agree with Woodsy your typical high performance boat tops out at 70 mph & thats WOT, more likely they are cruising in the 50-60 mph range. At my certification class many did not know what 150' looked like. We went outside & the instructor showed us, most thought 150' was alot further away. So any time I hear some one say a boat violated the 150' rule or that a boat was going 90 mph I take that with a grain of salt.

Thats why I think it is so important for legislators to insist on seeing documented evidence when considering legislation like the speed limit. Not emotion, rumors & innuendo. Because everyones perception is different & in the case of speed or distance that perception maybe factually wrong.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Woodsy makes many good points in my opinion. Fat Jack says that Lake Georges speed limit is enforced & its working. Frank M has also said this in past posts. I will ask this question, what else would you expect the person in charge of marine safety on Lake George to say? That he & his officers are unable to enforce the law, that the speed limit is useless. Of course they are not going to admit that. I do not believe everything I read & no one else should either.

Ok, if you aren't willing to accept that Lake George's speed limit is working, what about New Hampshire's second largest lake? Squam has a 40 mph daytime speed limit. I spent a lot of time kayaking on Squam last summer, and even the middle of the lake always felt very safe to me ... even on busy weekends. Some boaters probably did exceed the speed limit a bit, but overall, it appeared to be followed fairly well. And I also consistantly saw more kayaks and small sailboats on Squam, than what I saw on any other lakes that I paddled on all summer. So the speed limit seems to be working fairly well.

Now lets take a look at kayaking on Winni. The ower of the kayak shop where I bought my kayak has a family camp on Winni. She's a certified instructor and an expert kayaker. When I was in her store last week she told that going out on the main lake during the summer in a kayak is not at all safe. She says that it is a very dangerous lake for kayaks, due to the high speeds of some of the powerboats. This woman is an expert, and knows Winni very well. She feels that the lake is way overdue for a speed limit.

Squam, with it's 40 mph speed limit seems very safe to kayak, even when you're out in the middle on a busy weekend. And the number of kayaks that you see there supports this. Yet paddling on Winni's main lake on a busy weekend is considered to be very unsafe.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

Squam is a gorgeous lake. It has historically been a very private/exclusive lake with no public access until recently. The landowners on Squam actually banded together to buy property that the state was going to use to build a public launch. The state finally was able to build a public ramp that to this day is very sore spot with some people. Squam is nothing like Winnipesaukee. It has for the most part retained its rural character, and has nowhere near the numbers of boats on it Winni has. It really is a completely different atmosphere. I love Squam! I haven't boated there in 2 years, but I doubt it has changed all that much.

Lake Winnipesaukee has been built on and built up tremendously over the last decade. Currently in Weirs there are approximately 1500 new housing units approved to be built, although I am not sure how many are condos vs houses. Most of these housing units will be second homes so even more people will be up here on busy summer weekends. The property values in the area have shot thru the roof, causing many old school laker families to sell out because they can't afford the taxes. The marinas accomodate the needs of this building boom by building more and more buildings to rack store boats. All of these boats and people create alot of congestion in certain more popular parts of the lake during the summer.

The ower of the kayak shop where I bought my kayak has a family camp on Winni. She's a certified instructor and an expert kayaker. When I was in her store last week she told that going out on the main lake during the summer in a kayak is not at all safe. She says that it is a very dangerous lake for kayaks, due to the high speeds of some of the powerboats. This woman is an expert, and knows Winni very well. She feels that the lake is way overdue for a speed limit.

Truthfully Evenstar, its not speed that is really the issue. Its congestion! There are alot of boats on the lake, especially heading to and from the more popular destinations, Weirs, Meredith, Wolfeboro, Alton. There are a few go fast boats on the lake, but its a very small percentage (probably less than 1%) of the many boats that use the lake. There are far more Crownlines, Regals, Bayliners and Maxums on the lake than there are Baja, Donzi, Fountains or Formulas. The go fast boats are easily singled out because of thier exhaust noise and flashy graphics.

You could argue that if by going slower there is a better chance of seeing a small boat or kayak, however I don't agree. Most of the go fast boaters I know are extremely safe, proactive drivers. There are a few bozos in every lot, but that isn't the norm. There is no demonstrable need for a speed limit and its associated costs. There have been no accidents involving a go-fast where speed was the major factor. I would ask you to post any info you have on any kayaker/go-fast collision. I do not wish to limit your enjoyment of the lake, I really would hope you don't feel the need to limit mine.

Safety is paramount for anyone who uses the lake. You have as much right to enjoy the lake as anyone else. By the tone of your post, I gather you haven't yet kayaked on Winni. Here is an analogy for you:

You have the right to ride your bicycle on the streets of Boston, but laws being what they are, you have to share the streets with lots of cars and trucks and motorcycles. You cannot use the sidewalk, as its against the law. You have as much right as they do to be there, but the reality of the situation is that driving a bicycle in the city carries with it some inherent risks. You could go to a place where only bicycles are allowed to enjoy your bicycle, but you want to explore the big city. You could also go cycling during off hours or off days to limit your risk. Its your decision.

Lake Winni on a summer weekend is much the same, holiday weekends would probably qualify as rush hour in some parts of the lake, complete with lots of Boston drivers! You need to be defensive, you are the small guy out there. Don't assume the boater can see you. There are still alot of boaters on Winni who do not have a the required safe boater certificate have rented a boat and have no clue on how to operate it. Make sure your kayak is a bright color, wear a bright color PFD with a reflective strip so you can be seen at dusk. Bring a map. The waves out in the broads can get pretty big, probably as close to ocean kayaking you can get in this state without actually being on the ocean especially if there is a strong wind, so now the weather. You could put in at Glendale, cut through the Witches, avoid the broads altogether and enjoy exploring all sorts of islands and coves without having any issues at all! I don't know what it is you wish to explore, but there is plenty of quiet spots even on busy holiday weekend. You just need to get off the beaten path.

For the record, I have a 22' boat.

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...Squam is a gorgeous lake. It has historically been a very private/exclusive lake with no public access until recently. The landowners on Squam actually banded together to buy property that the state was going to use to build a public launch. The state finally was able to build a public ramp that to this day is very sore spot with some people. Squam is nothing like Winnipesaukee.

Why is it that every time another lake with a speed limit is brought up, the speed limit opponents argue that it’s not relevant to Winni?

Yes, there are differences between the two lakes. Goodness, I never said that the two largest lakes in NH were exactly the same. My point is that the speed limit on Squam seems to be working, with the result being that Squam is a much safer lake for smaller boats.

BTW: the public access in Holderness, along the Squam River, was donated to the State of New Hampshire by the Squam Lakes Association. And guess what? Only cars with trailers (including non-residents) can park in the parking lot. So us paddlers can only unload our gear at the access, but then we have to find a parking spot somewhere else, and walk back to the access.

Truthfully Evenstar, its not speed that is really the issue. Its congestion! …

That’s your perception, and congestion does likely add to the problem. But I and many others happen to see high speed as the biggest problem. There’s also the fact that a faster boat actually uses up more space on a lake. You could put 100 sea kayaks on Squam and would never guess that there were 100 boats on the water. Now put 100 high speed powerboats on Squam, all traveling at 75 mph and that same lake would be very congested.

You could argue that if by going slower there is a better chance of seeing a small boat or kayak, however I don't agree. Most of the go fast boaters I know are extremely safe, proactive drivers. ... I would ask you to post any info you have on any kayaker/go-fast collision. I do not wish to limit your enjoyment of the lake, I really would hope you don't feel the need to limit mine.

My argument is a factual one: The faster you go, the more distance you cover per second. If you don’t see a kayak in your path until you are 260 feet away, and you are traveling at 90 mph, you have less than 2 seconds to avoid hitting it. At 45 mph, you’ll have almost 4 seconds to avoid it. Those extra 2 seconds are very important to me.

Paddlers have effectively been forced off the main lake. That’s the only reason why there aren’t more collisions with us. We’re afraid to go there, for fear of being run over. So the high speed power boaters are limiting our enjoyment of the lake, for their own selfish needs to travel at dangerous (for us) speeds. A speed limit will help make it possible for more people to enjoy the entire lake. So who’s limiting who?

My new kayak is a bright red sea kayak, with a white hull. I wear a red PFD, a salmon colored dry top, and have a red cockpit skirt. I’m very visible, but if you are heading at me at 75+ mph, and the sun is hitting your wet windshield, will you even see my kayak? Goodness, large power boats even hit each other!

The waves are not the problem. I like big waves. The possibility of being run over is the problem.

And how can I be defensive in a kayak? Perhaps I could mount a small cannon on my deck, and fire warning shots?

[PROPELLER]

Evenstar, the only way to know if the SL on Squam has made a difference is to compare statistics from before the enactment of a SL to statistics gathered after the enactment of a SL. Maybe speed was not a problem before it was enacted. Although I have only been on Squam once, my understanding is that high performance boats probably did not use Squam to begin with. Its not as busy as Winni to begin with either.

I agree with Woodsy regarding his perception of Squam. Whether its accurate or not I do not know for sure but my perception of Squam is that its a very quiet lake in comparison to Winni, the majority of boaters probably own property on the lake & its always been perceived as very exclusive to the point of being snobbish. The property owners wanted nothing to do with public access & wanted to keep it for themselves.

My guess would be that the property owners supported a speed limit & got one passed once the new public access was established to try & keep the lake as much like it was before public access as possible & may not have had anything to do with an increase in speeding boats. It seems like it may have been more of a preventative measure to keep as many boats as possible off the lake than it was adressing an actual problem.

BTW, didn't you say in a previous post that you and a friend were swamped on Squam last year by a speeding boat that was too close? Yet your saying now that Squam is very safe to kayak.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Currently in Weirs there are approximately 1500 new housing units approved to be built...so even more people will be up here on busy summer weekends...The marinas accomodate the needs of this building boom by building more and more buildings to rack store boats. All of these boats and people create alot of congestion in certain more popular parts of the lake during the summer...There are alot of boats on the lake

This is exactly why we have to do something now. The changes you describe are causing the lake to become more and more crowded every year. Whereas a speed limit might not have been as big a need two or three years ago, it becomes more important with each passing year, as the number of "speedbumps" (a common nickname on OSO for us "blow boaters") increases.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The go fast boats are easily singled out because of thier exhaust noise and flashy graphics.

How are these boats being "singled out"? By who? The speed limits will apply equally to ALL boats. Stop trying to make this issue about the boats or the boaters. It is only about dangerously high speeds. If someone gets chopped in half by a boat going 90 mph, it will not matter about the flashy graphics. When a boat is coming straight at you at 90 mph, you tend to be worrying whether he sees you, not thinking about his graphics or what type of boat he is driving.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You could argue that if by going slower there is a better chance of seeing a small boat or kayak, however I don't agree.

Of course you don't...because you are not sincere. Anyone who would argue with this most basic point of logic is really not being reasonable.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Most of the go fast boaters I know are extremely safe, proactive drivers. There are a few bozos in every lot, but that isn't the norm.

"Most" is not good enough. All it will take is one "bozo" to kill me or my grandson.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There is no demonstrable need for a speed limit and its associated costs. There have been no accidents involving a go-fast where speed was the major factor.

Does this point need to be answered every day? How could there be any statistics when MP has not been keeping them? When accident causes so clearly being excessive speed have been categorized as other offenses?
And this threat about "associated costs" is just not going to carry. Lake George uses their access fees for many many other reasons, not to pay for speed enforcement. Fines alone have more than paid for their speed enforcement. Winnfabs has already agreed to privately raise whatever funds are needed to enforce the law. No NH citizen who does not want to contribute will ever have to pay a nickel. So let's please drop that scare tactic.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I do not wish to limit your enjoyment of the lake.

I believe you that such is not your wish, but how can it not be the result?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really would hope you don't feel the need to limit mine.

We do not wish to limit your enjoyment. That is not our secret goal. We just want you to enjoy yourself at an appropriate speed. That's all that this is about. Just as I don't want someone whose "enjoyment" includes firing guns to be doing so in my back yard. Not because I wish to limit his enjoyment, but because I do not want to be accidently shot.
Kayaking is a "passive" activity. Speeding is an "aggressive" one. Whenever passive and aggressive activities clash, limits must be placed on the aggressive. I can't smoke anywhere that I wish. I can't swear anywhere I wish. I can't play loud music anywhere I wish. I can't flatulate anywhere I wish. I enjoy these aggressive activities, but recognize and accept that there are appropriate and inappropriate places for them. I don't try to claim that the fellow who does not want to inhale my smoke or listen to my loud music is only trying to "limit my enjoyment".

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Here is an analogy for you: You have the right to ride your bicycle on the streets of Boston, but laws being what they are, you have to share the streets with lots of cars and trucks and motorcycles.

Here's a more appropriate analogy: You have a Toyota Camry and a wife and two young kids. You want to take your family to get an ice cream. But there are no speed limits on the roads and there are no traffic lights, no traffic signs, and no lane markings. And there are a "few bozos" (not my word) out there who have suped-up cars with no brakes and they are sometimes drag-racing in the streets of your neighborhood. Drag-racing is currently legal, so the police don't monitor their behavior. Hence, although there have been accidents over the years caused by these "bozos", the police cannot cite them for speeding and cannot blame the accidents on their obviously excessive speed (there is currently no such thing as "excessive speed"). So there are no statistics correlating speed and safety, except in other neighborhoods where such statistics are maintained. But they argue that those neighborhoods are different because the homes there are not privately owned as in your neighborhood. You know that it is dangerous out there, but the they keep arguing that this lack of statistics for your neighborhood proves their drag-racing is safe. So you can't take your kids to get that Ice cream.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

The only reason that land was donated was because the State of NH threatened to start taking property by eminent domain. Don't make it out to be some sort of generous offering by the Squam Lakes Assoc. They were distinctly threatened into a public launch.

It is your PERCEPTION that a speed limit seems to be working on Squam. I totally disagree. Squam has a completely different character than Winni, and there are a whole alot less people who use Squam than there are who use Winni. You are making comments and generalizations on based on other peoples perceptions about Winni and you haven't even experienced it yet... Kinda tough to consider your opinion even remotely credible.

You say its all about safety, but the reality is, because you don't FEEL safe, you wish to restrict my activities! I don't FEEL safe riding my bicycle in Boston, so I don't go there. Are all the other people who use the roads in Boston limiting my rights? Should I be screaming for a new law that will make me feel safe but limit someonelse's freedoms? Maybe make the public pay for new bicycle only lanes on already narrow crowded streets? Task the BPD with an unenforceable law just to make me feel safe? I just choose not to ride there. Its my choice not to go there or I find some other way to enjoy the city.

I have asked, and I will ask again, show me some concrete data that speed is an issue! Show me an accident report where a go-fast boat struck a kayaker! Show me something that says speed is an issue! Show me evidence that speed was a factor in any accident. You don't need a speed limit law to write speed was an issue in accident report! Show me why we need to spend all this money? Tell me how & where is this money going to come from? I have a very open mind about this, but it seems all I hear from the pro-speed limit crowd is emotion based rhetoric, not facts.

And how can I be defensive in a kayak? Perhaps I could mount a small cannon on my deck, and fire warning shots?

You ask how to be defensive? I told you how. Your the small guy keep your head on a swivel, don't assume the boater has seen you. Have you taken the NH Safe Boater course? Do you know all of the rules and regulations that all boaters are required to follow?

You enjoy kayaking, I enjoy going fast in my boat. There is plenty of lake for everyone, yet you wish to limit my activities based soley on emotion and perception, not cold hard facts! Not only do you wish to limit my activities to satisfy your personal feelings, but nobody from the pro-speed limit crowd has borught forth any proposal for how to fund this enforcement! Where does that money come from?

So we have no cold hard facts or statistics to support the need for a speed limit and we have no proposal for how to pay for the cost of implementing this law. All we have is emotional based rhetoric! I will ask again, take emotion and perception out of the equation and post facts!

A mind is like a parachute! It only works when open!

Woodsy

[ITD]

Sorry to single you out Evenstar, but.....

Originally Posted by Evenstar - from another thread

The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak.

for someone who hasn't even been on the lake to make a statement like this:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Paddlers have effectively been forced off the main lake. That’s the only reason why there aren’t more collisions with us. We’re afraid to go there, for fear of being run over. So the high speed power boaters are limiting our enjoyment of the lake, for their own selfish needs to travel at dangerous (for us) speeds. A speed limit will help make it possible for more people to enjoy the entire lake. So who’s limiting who?

loses some credibility with me. How do you know what the lake is like?

In reality 2 seconds versus 4 seconds reaction time isn't really that big of a deal. The only way to assure not getting run over by a boat is to ban all powered (and sail) boats from the lake. A speed limit won't solve the noise problem or the wake problem and there will still be collisions and bad behavior. Like other people here I'd like to see some facts instead of conjecture as to why a speed limit is necessary.

On the other side of the fence, GFBL (Go fast, Be Loud), the Go Fast part may be legal but the Be Loud part isn't. The present levels spec'd in the law is acceptable IMO. If a boat is louder than the law permits, it shouldn't be on the lake. I think if the dingalings who ignore this law would smarten up much of the problem would go away.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Evenstar, the only way to know if the SL on Squam has made a difference is to compare statistics from before the enactment of a SL to statistics gathered after the enactment of a SL. Maybe speed was not a problem before it was enacted. Although I have only been on Squam once, my understanding is that high performance boats probably did not use Squam to begin with. Its not as busy as Winni to begin with either.

I was on Squam last fall, while the NH B.A.S.S. Federation held it's annual Fall Open. Even though there were 51 teams there, kayaking anywhere on the lake was not a problem. Everyone of those Bass Boats could easily exceed Squam's speed limit.

You can argue all you want, but the fact is that Squam does have a speed limit, and the lake does feel very safe to me. If this is just my perception, then why are there so many small boats on Squam who aren't afraid to be out in the middle of the lake?

BTW, didn't you say in a previous post that you and a friend were swamped on Squam last year by a speeding boat that was too close? Yet your saying now that Squam is very safe to kayak.

Goodness there's always people breaking the law on any lake! As I explained in another post: "When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. ... That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." That was the only time that I had any problem with any powerboat on Squam. And being swamped in a kayak with sealed bulkheads, isn't really dangerous, it's just anoying.

[PROPELLER]

I am on Winni extensively all summer, 80-100 hours & I see small boats of all kinds all over the lake including the broads & yes I see kayaks out there to. If Winni is so dangerous then why all of the boating activity? Apparently these boaters do not find Winni unsafe or they would not be there.

You are reading posts from a very small group on this forum on both sides of the issue. How do you know you will not be safe if you kayak on Winni?

If Winni is so dangerous & there are too many boats traveling at speeds greater than 45 mph(which is unsafe according to you and others) then why are we not reading about collisions causing property damage & personal injury every weekend all summer long? Because these collisions are not happening. There has been only 1 tragic collision that has made the news recently. That was 2 years ago in Meredith & by all accounts speed was not the cause of the accident. The only other incidents I have heard about are drownings from canoes tipping & PFD's not being worn.

If there are collisions occurring(& I am not aware they are) then they must be happening at very low speeds around the public docks without causing personal injury or major property damage otherwise it would be big news & you would know about it. There would be documented statistics the SL supporters would produce to support their claims.

If 2 boats going even 25, 30 mph & collide there is going to be serious personal injury & property damage & it would be big news & there would be documented statistics but there isn't because these collisions are not occurring.

Many Opponents to the SL myself included would not be against HB162 if there were frequent collisions that was causing personal injury & property damage that could be avoided by enacting a SL.

[GWC...]

The big problem on the Lake is the lack of common courtesy.

A thread has been started for the discussion of a speed limit on the Lake.

So, are any of you who are discussing the speed limit on this thread capable of common courtesy?

Will winnilaker finally be allowed opinions regarding his new boating organization, on this thread?

Time will tell…

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry to single you out Evenstar, but.....for someone who hasn't even been on the lake to make a statement like this ... loses some credibility with me. How do you know what the lake is like?

Don't you people read posts? I've explained this several times: I've been to Winni many times ... I've just haven't kayaked on it yet. But I will, probably next month. I also have written several times: "The ower of the kayak shop where I bought my kayak has a family camp on Winni. She's a certified instructor and an expert kayaker. When I was in her store last week she told that going out on the main lake during the summer in a kayak is not at all safe. She says that it is a very dangerous lake for kayaks, due to the high speeds of some of the powerboats. This woman is an expert, and knows Winni very well. She feels that the lake is way overdue for a speed limit."

So how much time have you spent on Winni in a sea kayak?

In reality 2 seconds versus 4 seconds reaction time isn't really that big of a deal.

When a power boat is heading directly at me at 75+ mph it becomes a big deal! 2 seconds = 220 feet at 75 mph.

The only way to assure not getting run over by a boat is to ban all powered (and sail) boats from the lake. A speed limit won't solve the noise problem or the wake problem and there will still be collisions and bad behavior. Like other people here I'd like to see some facts instead of conjecture as to why a speed limit is necessary.

A speed limit on the Interstate won't prevent you from being hit either. Just because some people will still break the laws, isn't a very good argument for not having a speed limit. When did I ever mention noise?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Don't you people read posts? I've explained this several times: I've been to Winni many times ... I've just haven't kayaked on it yet. But I will, probably next month.

I was away last week and missed the part where this topic was beaten to death, but I did go through most of your posts. I see that you mention you've been on Squam and I believe that. For Winnipesaukee you say in several posts you have been "to" Winni many times, you never say on. The closest you come for Winnipesaukee is that you mentioned your grandparents boated on Winnipesaukee, I assume years ago. Finally the quote which I repeat here specifically says you have not been on Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak.

That was the statement I based my comment on, I’ve read it many times it’s pretty clear, maybe you mistyped, doesn’t really matter.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So how much time have you spent on Winni in a sea kayak?

None, I do have a canoe, I don't venture far from the shore, not a smart thing to do on a big lake with a lot of boats, even if they are only going 45 mph and then there is the weather issue, can change really quick. I don't expect everyone to put their boats away so I can spend a day paddling across the Broads either. Just the way I was brought up.

I do have a small row boat with a 2.5 hp motor (will be upgrading to a larger motor this year). I venture further out on that usually to fish. I have seen GFBL boats while out on that boat, every single one so far has seen me and given me a wide berth. I have had close calls in that boat. Every time it has been a pontoon boat with an outboard on it and a 50+ year old guy driving it. If I had to guess the speed, none of them were going over 30, usually a blast from the canned air horn would get them to turn, a couple have continued to blow (remember less than 30 but it sure seemed fast) by me close enough so I could have hooked them with a cast (my best cast is about 40 to 50 feet with the lures I use). Maybe I should be lobbying for pontoon boats to be banned. (Just kidding)

I also have a 17 foot day sailer, I venture even further on this boat (usually about 5 to 10 miles). Again I have seen many GFBL boats in the three years of sailing this boat and again I have had no close calls or problems with them. This boat seems to attract people in power boats who are sight seeing, they have no concept that a sail boat actually moves and end up coming too close. All of these “incidents” if you can call them that have involved runabouts or cabin cruisers.

Finally in the interest of full disclosure I have a 26 foot runabout capable of going about 55 mph although I rarely go that fast. I also see GFBL boats when out on that boat, a few of those going fast. Again, never a close call, they always give a wide berth.
So you see when I say that a speed limit will not solve any of the problems listed by the proponents I’m actually using events from my own experiences to form my opinion. When I and others ask for reasons beyond emotions and perceived problems we cannot get a good answer. That’s because there isn’t a good answer and you will not be safer in the middle of the Broads with a 45 mph speed limit.

I think part of the problem is that some people want Winnipesaukee to be like Squam or some little lake where powerboats are restricted or prohibited. I just don’t think that is reasonable.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

A speed limit on the Interstate won't prevent you from being hit either. Just because some people will still break the laws, isn't a very good argument for not having a speed limit.

Don’t know what you are trying to say here, I see a double negative in the statement.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When did I ever mention noise?

You didn’t, I did (along with others).

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I was away last week and missed the part where this topic was beaten to death, but I did go through most of your posts. I see that you mention you've been on Squam and I believe that. For Winnipesaukee you say in several posts you have been "to" Winni many times, you never say on. The closest you come for Winnipesaukee is that you mentioned your grandparents boated on Winnipesaukee, I assume years ago. Finally the quote which I repeat here specifically says you have not been on Winnipesaukee.

Hey, I've been totally honest about the fact that I haven't kayaked on Winni yet. I've also stated that I've been to Winni many times. You can tell a lot about how safe a lake is, just by spending time on its shore. Granted, it's not the same as being "out on it", but you can still get a pretty good idea. And I did talk with a certified kayak instuctor, who knows Winni very well. (I noticed that you avoided that part of my reply.)

I don't expect everyone to put their boats away so I can spend a day paddling across the Broads either. Just the way I was brought up.

A sea kayak is not a canoe, or a row boat, or a day sailer, or a runabout. So you're obvoiusly no expert on kayaking on Winni. A sea kayak is much faster than a canoe or a rowboat, or a recreational kayak. And it's much more sea worthy ... especially if you use a skirt. The widest part of the main lake (open water w/o islands) is less than 5 miles. I average about 5 miles an hour in my current kayak, which is shorter and slower than my new one. So I won't be spending "a day paddling across the Broads." I can cross it in about an hour. And I'm not asking for "everyone to put their boats away." All I'm "asking for" is the right to safely use the lake. And using the lake, includes kayaking on the Broads safely.

So you see when I say that a speed limit will not solve any of the problems listed by the proponents I’m actually using events from my own experiences to form my opinion. When I and others ask for reasons beyond emotions and perceived problems we cannot get a good answer. That’s because there isn’t a good answer and you will not be safer in the middle of the Broads with a 45 mph speed limit.

I beg to differ. Of course it would be safer! Which is safer, crossing a busy highway that has a 45 mph speed limit, or crossing a busy highway where cars can go as fast as they want to?

Squam is not exactly a little lake. So it's not as big as Winni, but it is the second largest lake in NH.

Don’t know what you are trying to say here, I see a double negative in the statement.

I was just responding to your post, where you wrote: "A speed limit won't solve the noise problem or the wake problem and there will still be collisions and bad behavior."
There will always be people who break the laws, but that is a pointless argument for not passing a law. Do you understand what I am saying now?