US Coast Guard on Speed and Accidents

[Bear Lover]

Incredibly, HB162 opponents often repeat the claim that speed is not a safety problem. Below is a summary of US Coast Guard statistics on 2004 boating accidents.

Speed is listed as the #4 contributing factor in boating accidents. #1 Reckless Operation and #2 Inattention are already against the law. Inattention was the charge in the recent fatal accident of Winni. #3 Inexperience has already been addressed by the Boating Safety Certificate law. Now it is time for HB162 to address contributing factor #4 Speed.

The statistics also show that "Collision with Vessel" is the #1 type of boating accident by 3 to 1.

[Cal]

Top cause of fatalities seems to be "alcohol" and most types of accidents a causing fatalities is "falls overboard"(more than likely related to alcohol).
So lets ban alcohol"

Oh yes . I don't drink anyway...so neither can you.
Nice attitude , huh???

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Top cause of fatalities seems to be "alcohol" and most types of accidents a causing fatalities is "falls overboard"(more than likely related to alcohol).
So lets ban alcohol"

Oh yes . I don't drink anyway...so neither can you.
Nice attitude , huh???

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

[winnilaker]

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf

If you do a search on "Excessive Speed" in that document, you will not find it defined as a particular speed, in fact its just a checkbox on the accident report. We would need to contact the US Coast Guard to find out, but my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways. Yes, a boat traveling 60 mph did a sharp turn and it flipped. Reason X - Excessive Speed, X- Sharp Turn (Look in that report for how that check reasons off)

I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

For one, I personally think excessive speed can be a reason applied TO ANY accident if the boats are moving (see definition of safe speed from the US Coast Guard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...es/Rule06.htm). So I would like to state, at least myself, I'm not saying "speed is not a safety issue". What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Stupidity is not against the LAW. I don't see how a speed limit law will help. Just drive on a road with a posted limit of 55MPH and see how fast there is a car or truck on your rear bumper pushing (drafting for the NASCAR set) you or flashing their lights.

[Lakegeezer]

The US Coast Guard report from 2003 and 2004 has some details about speed and accidents.

Boating Statistics 2003 – US Dept of Homeland security – Coast Guard
Accidents and fatalities
Not moving 815 61
Under 10 mph 1,173 164
10 to 20 mph 1,147 43
21 to 40 mph 1,082 56
Over 40 mph 180 14
Not Reported 2,966 365

The numbers in the 2004 report are
Accidents and fatalities

Not moving 810 66
Under 10 mph 1,242 163
10 to 20 mph 1,020 40
21 to 40 mph 933 49
Over 40 mph 137 14
Unknown 2,583 344

SPEED

Where speed was reported, it turns out that there were more accidents and fatalities with boats not moving at all than at over 40. The most dangerous speed is under 10.

In my opinion, excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a red herring.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a rotten red herring.

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!

[winnilaker]

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf
I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

EXACTLY!!!! Facts and figures can LIE , yet be totally truthful.It's all in the way it is presented.
You know that old saying??? "Figures lie and liars figure"...go figure.


The universal answer to the whole problem???alcohol.
If the speed limit proponents stay drunk enough , they won't care how fast the rest go

Seriously though , have a Merry Christmas and DON'T drink and drive

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?

First, it is the length of the boat THE VICTIM IS IN that is reported by the USCG. So if a 32' boat goes up and over a 19' boat killing someone, the USCG reports it as a death in a boat 16' to 26'.

Second, the vast majority of boats are under 26' probably around 99% (a guess). How would that graph look if it was death per 1,000,000 boats.

[Bear Islander]

winnilaker

There are quite a few deaths in PWCs. They are under 16' and they go much faster than 45 MPH. And many boats under 26' are fast.

HB162 is about SPEED!

[winnilaker]

Bear Islander,
Without using numbers, please define excessive speed? This way we'll all be on the same page. "HB162 can't just be about speed ALONE" or supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

OUR lake had a fatal night accident at 28 MPH. That is a FACT that proves your statement to be incorrect.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Bear Islander,
Without using numbers, please define excessive speed? This way we'll all be on the same page. "HB162 can't just be about speed ALONE" or supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I will defer my definition of "Excessive Speed" to the RR&D commitee. They believe it to be 25 at night and 45 during the day.

If HB162 passes we will all have a legal definition of Excessive Speed!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?

I'll defer to your post that started this thread, where you don't define excessive speed as it is interpreted for this report.

As for your definition for excessive speed, thank you.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways.

Herein lies exactly the point (or at least one of them). Once HB162 is passed, there will be no more quibbling and opining about whether a speed was excessive. Aside from what other limitations already exist which can be cited against those going faster or slower, if one is going over 45, his speed will be legally excessive (or 25 if at night). Now that's a law that requires no "guessing".

[chase1]

This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page from this report regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. The Coast Guard report does list excessive speed as the fourth top contributing factor for all accidents with operator inexperience, careless/wreck less operation, and operator inattention taking the top three. The same report glossary defines speeding as - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances. By definition excessive speed / speeding does not have a particular value and therefore can occur at any speed. With 137 vessels nationwide involved in accidents at speeds over 40mph and excessive speed being one of the top contributing factors with all vessels involved (6,725) it can be concluded that most excessive speeding accidents currently occur under 40mph.

Chase1

[winnilaker]

FJ,
Exactly, no more misinterpreting what is and what isn't excessive. That's why I'm personally fighting to get it right the first time. For future generations to not look back and say, "this law doesn't address the majority of the real problems"

You may or may not be aware of a new bill proposed by Rep. Spang and Rep. Currier to look into boating safety in more detail. You have the means to find the bill. If folks want me to post it here I can. Spang and Currier were on the R,R & D committee, Spang for a speed limit and Currier against, yet they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH. It has both opponents and supporters on the commission, so it should be well deversed and objective.

My point here is why pass a new law, when we have the opportunity to dive into the real issues on the lake.

[Woodsy]

Actually, I think you guys are both wrong... I think the quibbling will continue regardless... the conditions prevalent at the time of the incident will always be a factor.

The Coast Guard standard for determining excessive speed bears some serious consideration.

For example, if you are traveling at 25mph in a dense fog and have an accident of some sort, collide with another boat or hit a dock/shoreline. Your rate of travel, 25mph, although legal under HB-162 it would be considered excessive speed by using the Coast Guard standard.

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the 28mph the Littlefield boat was traveling at might (and I mean might) have been considered excessive speed for the prevalent conditions. (dark night) It would not have been considered speeding under HB-162. When was the last time anybody got a speeding ticket for 3mph over the limit? The standard is usually 10+MPH over the posted limit.

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem!

You are right! So we should make the speed limits of HB162 apply to smaller boats too. Oh wait, they already would.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH.

Assuming this committee also concludes as the RR&D did that new laws or limits are deserved, and your crowd therefore fights this bill as you have every bill or effort in the past that aimed to put limits on unruly and objectional behavior (noise laws, PWC laws, loon protection, etc), and you are successful in dragging this one out two years as you did HB162, then I will be in my forties. I am getting too old to keep waiting to use our lake again.
Let's go with HB162 for now, then if the committee comes up with some better solution, they can always write directly into that bill a provision for expiring the speed limit law. The statutes are full of deleted obsolete laws...its not that big a deal.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.
Woodsy

The authorites are always going to have the choice to apply the stricter of two or more laws in any given situation. A 45mph speed limit is not going to override the reckless operation law, the 150-ft law, the BWI law, or any other law that is violated. The 45mph limit merely gives the MP another tool in their holster. If they refuse to use that tool, that's a discussion for next year. That is why it is so curious to see Glendale fighting this with the argument that it would be "ineffective". If it was truly going to be ineffective at slowing the fast few down, would there really be this much of a stink raised about it? Meaningless laws tend to get very little attention. But then, didn't the director also say that he wasn't aware of any boating problems on Lake Winnipesaukee last winter (before thousands came to the hearings to testify from both sides about the infinity of boating safety problems they were witnessing on the lake)?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!

As the posts that followed yours point out, my statement does not contradict itself. Excessive speed can be 10 MPH, which has little if anything to do with speed limits. Excessive speed is any speed at which an accident occurs which would have not occurred at a slower speed. If an legal definition of excessive speed is set at 45, that becomes a legal point of view, but says nothing about safety. There can still be accidents caused by excessive speed at speeds below 45, and there can be very safe travel at 60mph (even though it would unfortunately become an legal infraction). The main point of argument here is that speeds above 45 alone have not been shown to cause an abnormal share of accidents yet a set speed limit continues to be brought up as a way to improve safety. Going too fast for conditions is a problem and should remain a point of concern. Going fast is not the problem, but sending the message that 44 mph is always ok because its below the speed limit is dangerous.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members.

[BroadHopper]

It is not the fact that HB162 is about speed. I'm worried about all the amendments being tacked to it. Like all body of water including 3 miles out to the ocean. Then there are rumors that Sea Rays and SeaCrests belong in the sea, Key West belong in Key West, Yada Yada Yada. Then the hospitaliity industry is going to tell everyone the lakes are safe when in fact they are WRONG. It is no safer with a speed limit law. The MP are too busy to keep the 'Caption Boneheads' in line. If Captain Bonehead hit Bear Islander ot Bear Lover with his pontoon boat, I can see them screaming bloody blue Jeezus and send out a bill to ban pontoon boats!
That is what I am getting at!

Merry Christmas.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members.

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!! If yes, it will show your true feelings of the haves vs the have nots.

[Silver Duck]

First, the observation. Excessive speed is easy to define! It's any speed at which you were unable to avoid a collision (and, I'd be happy to stretch that to include a "near miss", too!) If someone is unable to stop or turn their boat with plenty of room to spare, they're going too danged fast, period, no matter what the spedometer reading is!

Now, the question. Are any of the legislators involved with HB162 experienced boaters?

Silver Duck

[fatlazyless]

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21.

"To the editor.

As an orthopedic surgeon serving the Greater Nashua community for many years and as a lifelong boater on our New Hampshire lakes, I strongly believe that the 45 mph (day) and the 25 mph (night) speed limits as put forth in House Bill 162 are critically needed. Seeing first hand how accidents can harm human life and limb and helping family members manage their injury rehabilitation have made me safety-minded and community-minded. With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed, boating on our lakes in New Hampshire has reached the danger level, for certain, and this bill will help preserve the safety of everyone.
Already, our family centered State has speed limits enforced by the NH Fish and Game and their radar guns on our backwoods trais to ensure the safety of hikers, snow shoers and cross-country skiers, side-by-side ATV's, dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Already, we have speed limits on our town roads to ensure the safety of those bicycling, roller blading, walking, jogging, and pushing baby strollers, side-by-side cars and trucks. It makes sense to do the same on New Hampshire's lakes to protect kayakers, swimmers, sailboaters, windsurfers, canoers, and rowers side-by-side motor boats.
The proposed 45 ph daytime speed limit is plenty fast enough to waterski and to boat from one end of a lake to the other, while allowing enough reaction and stopping time to prevent collisions with objects and other lake enthusiasts. The proposed 25 mph nighttime limit is plenty fast enough to move about at night but at much slower speeds to compensate for the vastly challenged visibility that darkness on water brings.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives will be addressing this bill in January. Please call, write or email your NH legislaturs before then and urge them to support House Bill 162 and the proposed 45/25 mph boating speed limits for New Hampshire. It will save somebody's life or limb.
Douglas Joseph M.D.
Nashua

Letters - The Laconia Daily Sun, Dec 21, 2005

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

#3 Inexperience has already been addressed by the Boating Safety Certificate law.

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

While I do believe there is work to be done (online course in particular), many have taken the classroom course, I also believe it is working for a large percentage of boaters. I think its the reason, while boat registrations are up and the accidents are continuely going down. 95 in 2000 to 35 last year.

A National Boating Safety Alert recommended 3 things,
1. States should require PFDs for 12 and under. (Which I believe a new bill has been proposed for this) I support it.
2. States should implement a boating education certification program. We did that.
3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

For the full report: http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

This is exactly what I am looking for. In class programs are decent, the internet one is far from it but having a hands-on training or test would definitely help.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Lakegeezer did a great job illustrating that Excessive Speed can be 10 mph. Winnilaker and others also point out this flaw in the statistical interpretation. Excessive Speed is relative, it is not a specific number (like 45 mph).

I believe that the US Coast Guard survey includes all areas, not just Lakes similar to Winnipesaukee. Ocean boating is a bit different.

I can not go 45 mph in my boat (unless Columbus was wrong and I fall off the edge) but I do NOT favor any new Lake Speed restrictions.

IMHO: It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast!

Seasons greetings .

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

All I said was that the Boating Safety Certificate address the issue of boater experience. How well it is working is open to discussion, however there is a law in place. When it comes to speed there is no law in place.

The certificate is better than nothing, at least it gives new boaters some kind of a clue. It also makes it harder to look a MP officer in the face and say "I never knew that!"

[chase1]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21...

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter. While I was at the barber shop today I read the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics report. You should look at it. This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. USCG accident statistics should rank over some letter that expresses the opinion of one individual.

"With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed" - as an experienced boater he should know that excessive speed occurs at any speed and proposed limits therefore HB162 not reduce his income.

I read a tabloid while in line at the market once and a printed copy of a letter sent in from some Jack confirmed alien life forms working in Arizona.

The source is important when judging content.

Chase1 MD

[Bear Lover]

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

And to be fair lets mention that these statistics are for ALL vessels, including row boats, kayaks, inflatable boats, canoes etc. When you take that into account, it's no wonder many fatal accidents are at low speed.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chase1

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter.
Chase1

The only point is that it is in favor of the speed limit. Pasted below are all the letters not written to any editor from all the other area Orthopedic Surgeons that don't oppose the bill. Their silence is deafening and implies that they must oppose the speed limit.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

Or perhaps their speed was irrelevant.

Lets assume for a moment that high speeds make it harder to estimate speed based on impact damage (they don't, common sense kinda prevails here); do you really believe the USCG would investigate a high speed accident and report nothing more than "speed unknown" if speed was so high that it could not be estimated? C'mon, that's quite a reach.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

And to be fair lets mention that these statistics are for ALL vessels, including row boats, kayaks, inflatable boats, canoes etc. When you take that into account, it's no wonder many fatal accidents are at low speed.

Wish I had seen thess posts before I had typed my other reply, I could have saved some typing. So what's your point above ? Are you saying that all or most of the unknown speeds are above 40 mph ? Why would you believe that ? Seems to me that it's likely that the distribution of the unknown speeds pretty much follows the distribution of the known speeds. The percentages won't much change then. If you have some reason to belive otherwise please state it.

edit : FWIW the CG entry is for over 40 mph. Should those boats have been going "so fast that their speed couldn't be estimated" I'd think they would have been included in this category.
Investigator: How fast where they going ?
Response : I couldn't tell, it was too fast.
Investigator : [puts checkmark in over 40 box]

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

Your statement clearly stated that the issue had been addressed. I do not believe that the solution that was come up with addresses much of anything...I obviously have taken the test as have many others on this forum and I bet that I am speaking for many when I say that the test hardly scratches the surface in proper boater education. I do not believe that by simply taking the test a newbie boater is anywhere near ready to be on the water be it Winni, the ocean or in a puddle. Not to mention how easy it would be for someone to get a certificate without even doing it themselves...

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

Are you trying to be funny?

Does the "No Limits" slogan refer to the Minimum Safe Passage rule? I didn't know you were trying to repeal that one!

[Cobalt]

It is really unfortunate the HB 162 proponents were not around in 1912. With the night speed limit and a special subsection to address floating icebergs, they may have saved the Titanic.

Happy holidays.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Are you trying to be funny?

Nope, wasn't, your statement was that speed is not addressed by law, when it fact it is. If you are referring to excessive speed, well that definition is to be defined, I'll follow the US Coast Guard where they define safe speed, and conclude that anything above their definition of safe speed is excessive speed. And since they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision, I also conclude that a collision requires 2 objects (boats or anything). And since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less, its seem that your original post that "speed is not address by law" is incorrect. But this is just my interpretation.

[Bear Lover]

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Lets not pick nits.

Judging by the number for times you've repeated the "(Estimated)28 mph night time accident involving your neighbor" and made it sould like gosple that a 25 mph limit would have prevented it , you must have an entire pocket full of nits by now.
Not that I am minimizing the depth of this tragedy but we all know there were a number of poor decisions made prior to that fateful night

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision

So I guess it's your position that everything is just fine on Winnipesaukee? Thousands attending hearings, writing to reps and newspapers, and voting in polls that speed is a problem needing repair are just wrong, but the 27 or so from NHRBA that are "forum eligible" know better?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less

That 150' rule is forty years old. As boating speeds have increased since then, that 150' "buffer" has shrunk from a safety zone to a microsecond (less that the human reaction time at these speeds). You know all this. You've been at the hearings and heard all these facts. You have engineers in your small membership. When are you going to just admit that you and your minority group of fun-seekers are simply wrong?

[overlook]

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph. Or an accident at night that an operator was not controling there vessel in a manner that not to endanger others. As long as a vessel is moving - speed is a factor.

45-25 came from lake George, without any cosideration for safe passage!


Lake George 21
Lake winni. 0

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

NWZ
Safe passage
Not to endanger
Reasonable speed when visability allows.

Look right when going and comming, and give way.
You seem to have racing blinders on.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!!

Of course I don't think it was the main reason. I think the biggest part of the reason was to try to diminish the support for and distract attention from HB162. (of course that did not work). Next biggest part was to try to legitimize NHRBA and make it look like it was really intersested in boating safety. The fact that the place you chose to seek a no-wake zone just happened to be right in front of the house of your single most generous personal contributor was probably third, in my opinion. I was actually in favor of the petition, but have to admit it really bothered me to see the person in the newspapers with one of the largest and loudest boats on the lake (one of the richest "haves" on the lake), speaking about his right to roar around the rest of the lake and force the rest of us to put in earplugs and dive for cover, while you guys are working to get what is effectively a personal "quiet zone" for him in front of his house.
So I guess it does say a bit about my true feelings about the "haves vs the have nots".

[ApS]

Originally Posted by overlook

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph.

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."

On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:
On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

Could be booze and drugs combined after reading your Donzi forum link...Take out these factors and it probably would not have happened. Not to mention he had a reckless history, not all people in fast boats do.

Out of 6 deaths in NH that year, two were non-boating related drownings. The other 4 have no causes listed, there is no facts stated that they are speed related, or for that matter even took place in a moving boat! They could be drunken drownings at the sand bar for that matter. Facts please, not assumptions making NH sound more dangerous than it is. NH is considerably smaller in size and overall acreage of water so it makes sense that the concentration would be higher for accidents. IMO it still does not make NH a deadly place to boat.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."


On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

Once again conjecture quoted as fact. Actual, complete quote: "One source has estimated New Hampshire leads the nation in accidents per acre of water and per 1,000 boats registered."

Key words here, "One source" and "estimated". Seems to me a statement like this would be easy to verify, why hasn't this been done? Because it's probably not true. Why don't these posters tell the whole story? The truth simply does not support their arguments as shown again and again right here in these posts, if you read carefully.

If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found.

[Island Lover]

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Yet innattention, recklessness, alcohol, lack of experience and even weather conditions all cause more deaths per year. Make a law banning bad weather during boating season and I am in! Do more to fix the top 3 and put more accountability on alcohol and establishments that serve it and speed will be a non-issue.

[Island Lover]

Quibbles and Excuses

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Quibbles and Excuses

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Quibbles and Excuses

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

Cman,

By "scare tactics", are you referring to the assertion that the local economy is going to collapse if we slow the very small group of excitement seeking go-fasters down? Or are you referring to the assertion that slow boats are more dangerous because they can't plane and the drivers therefore can't see where they are going when driving "only" 45? Or are you referring to the accusation that this is "discriminatory" against performance boats because they will somehow be the only ones who would have to obey the new limits? Or that this is just a veiled attempt to convert our lakes into "Golden Pond"? Or that the supporters are going to go after all other types of boats next? Or that our shores will be eroded and our environment destroyed by a speed limit? Or that the state will have to impose user fees to enforce a speed limit? Or that even the law abiders will be getting erroneous speeding tickets because of radar that doesn't work on boats? Or that speed limits will actually attract law-breakers to come here for the thrill of the chase? Or that the supporters will all be harrassed by having protest rallies staged in front of their houses? Need I go on?

By "lack of facts", are you referring to the facts that were deleted in all of the go-fast sites? Or to the facts from other lakes where speed limits have been proven so effective? Or to all the high-speed accidents on Winnipesaukee alone over the past few yeras that were mysteriously not classified as "speed-related"? Or to the fact that thousands of lake users (on both sides) testified about the plethora of safety problems on our lakes that our current laws are not preventing? Or, most importantly, to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the lakes' owners want a speed limit, as proven by the legitimate polls done by ARG and NHRBA?

By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group? Or to its original "we just care about preserving all boaters' rights" agenda before they finally admitted that this is all just about "excitement"? Or to the supporters' "we just want to be safe on the lakes we own" agenda. when (according to you), what they really want is to rid the lake of boats having a certain shape?

Seems that you've got it all backwards.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by ITD

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

I posted the following earlier in another thread about this same stuff.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Unfortunately, now that will not be possible, because your members have had them all deleted. Of course, I'm sure that at least some of those facts have been saved , but when they are publicized now, we will be accused of selecting. Now your side can conveniently claim that things were not really that bad, but that you are the ones who are unable to prove that.

How prophetic.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Cman,
By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group?
Seems that you've got it all backwards.

Nice try FJ, I guess we shouldn't have put that NWZ in! Don't respond with your usual (Whaa whaaa, that's because it's in front of NHRBA member's house). That had nothing to do with it, even Rusty called me and congratulated us on getting that passed. And what hidden agenda does NHRBA have??? Please explain it to all. We DO NOT support HB162 as ammended! No hidden secret there! We also want to start an aggressive marketing campaign to better inform people of the 150 ft safe passage law, whooo, bad people we are. Better access to lakes is also an agenda. You're not a member, so how would you know. Oh yeah, I forgot a Winnfabs officer said you can easily inflitrate NHRBA, so if that is true, tell everyone our secrets. If you can't, just go back to supporting HB162 because you want your golden pond and I would have more respect for you if you were honest like Rep. Pilliod about the agenda.

However Winnfab's hidden agenda that you WON'T find our their site is that they WANT all performance boats off the lake, PERIOD!!! That's hidden, you must have some kind of intelligent thought process to see the difference!

Must I remind you that even Rep. Pilliod is honest about this "hidden" agenda.

".. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them...." Rep Pilliod


And what poll do you keep referring to that NHRBA did, I happen to know about everything that NHRBA has done and we never commisioned a poll. Is this another one of your feeble attempts to confuse the readers? I had to laugh out loud at your post earlier this year!!

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I heard on the news that there is so much interest that they are splitting up the hearing into two separate sessions. Those who are in favor of the bill and a speed limit should show at the above time. Those that are against should show up at 2PM.

LOL, trying to get everyone to show up 3 hours late, did ya really think that was going to work!!! I guess that's why only 1 person showed up in favor and the rest were against it at the right time, 11am!!! Your posts are full of contradictory, misguiding, incorrect and sometimes comical information, so please keep them coming, it's a new year and we could all use some hysterics! Look forward to your next post!

[Fat Jack]

WL,
I notice that you never address the issues-at-hand in your responses, instead taking the response off an a tangent when it is not going the way you'd like. You must have studied debating in school and learned about the use of red herrings to distract when your argument is going astray. Nice.
Of course, anyone else who read that old post knew I was jesting. But I guess if that was all you had... And I guess I forgot who I was dealing with. Did it fool any of you? If so, sorry (said in jest).

Now to the points about NHRBA;
I don't think anyone in NH truly believes that NHRBA is a "boating safety" group, despite your no-wake petition. Recall that John Kerry voted for the war...is he a hawk? We all know why Kerry voted for the war, and we all know why you petitioned for that NWZ.
Did you not report to the Winnilakers membership back in 2003, in a thread directed at your fight against that year's HB406, "its official,...NHRBA has been created. This association will be dedicated to fighting for the rights of boaters on NH's waters...looking for individuals to come to show support against a Bill, trying to impose a night-time speed limit...if the bill passes, day time speed is not far away"? Generally, "safety" groups efforts have something to do with safety....at least their initial efforts. No mention of no-wake zones here or education or improving enforcement of the 150-ft rule...just "fighting for the rights of boaters" (to go as fast as they want).
In that same thread about that night-time speed limit law, you posted a message entitled "This is why we have this site". Are we to believe that the Winnilaker's GFBL group suddenly becomes a "safety" group when they log off Winnilakers and log on to NHRBA?
In another thread, you wrote "NH Lakes Association is supporting this bill, so that means we have to fight even harder". NHLA has been a great thing for the state of NH. Few citizens of this state would disagree. Before NHRBA/Winnilakers, I knew of nobody who did not appreciate all that NHLA has done for all of us. Why were they your first declared enemy if you were a "safety" group?
In another post on that forum entitled "Loon lovers at it again! SB:106 Trying to ban watercraft" one of your members wrote of how Senator Johnson was trying to "backdoor" a policy to define 3-seat PWC's as PWC's (what they are). "We can't allow this to happen" he said. "let the loon loving, canoe paddling, conservatives know that its everyones right to our lakes". He asks for NHRBA's help. Why would he expect help from a "safety" group to fight loon lovers?
As recently as last April, on OSO, you wrote "I have set up a new organization NHRBA...I have legal representation in concord working for us on issues like the speed limit". Why no mention of your real purpose...boating safety?
Also in April, you posted on Winnilakers "The NHRBA has all summer to put in place an organization to counter the false claims of this anti-boating group" (referring to Winnfabs). If your organization was put in place for this purpose then, why not just admit that now? Or else, when did it convert to a "boating safety" organization?

Again, I can't speak for Winnfabs. I do not know how you disserned that their real objective is to ban all boats from our lakes. I have never seen anything except NHRBA talk of that (scare tactics?). But I am told that Winnfabs was formed for the sole purpose of fighting for HB162. In fact, they say so right on their website; "The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of House Bill 162 which provides for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH." They do not pretend to be anything else. I just wish NHRBA would have the integrety to admit what they really are, what you yourself alluded to in the Citizen last week; a GFBL group fighting against any limits on their "excitement". There is nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs. In fact, that is admirable. If you feel that high-speed boating is exciting, and don't want it to end, just say so. I'd respect that, I'd respect you, and I'd respect NHRBA. Notice that none of us are challenging the integrity of OSO or Winnilakers? They are GFBL groups, they admit they are GFBL groups, and we all respect their right to disagree with us. I respect the rights of smokers groups to fight smoking restrictions, so long as they do not pose as "health" groups and say they are doing so because they feel smoking is healthy.
FJ

PS: Are you swearing here that neither NHRBA or any of its partners, associates, or anyone else fighting like you against HB162 (Winnilakers.com, Speedwake, OSO, Baja Marine, your attorneys, the Marine Trades Association, etc) had a survey of their own done? If that is absolutely true, you should have no trouble with a simple unqualified "yes".

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found..."

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?)

The first guy is a direct Littlefield-CLONE, but twice faster, and twice more deadly as far as can be determined from Littlefield's own, self-serving, (and widely quoted), "28-MPH" testimony. With civil charges and a BWI charge overhead, why not testify to a "slow" 28-MPH?

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened? Would speed limits have saved these victims? I am sure WASTED drivers really care about speed limits. Sounds to me like HB162 should be named Hartmans Bill 162. Absolute tragedy, I certainly do not discount the loss of any of these lives and would love to see stiffer penalties used but none of them would have been saved or for that matter the accident be prevented by a speed limit.

[winnilaker]

FJ,
I don't really see your point here. This is NHRBA's charter, it's on our website.

"We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs."

As a side note, we have attempted to make the lake safer in any way we can. Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org", but secretly were gonna fight bills. Nothing hidden there, most people who have joined, have joined specifically to help fight against bills such as HB162. Again, your post is not very useful for all.
WL

PS. As you often state (I don't know about winnfabs), I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey. So as long as you continue to attempt to give NHRBA a bad name, I will continually defend it against you, since you are the ONLY one on this entire forum that seems to have a problem with NHRBA, at least that has publically stated it. So quote all the posts you want about wanting to fight against HB162, nothing new here! I actually forgot about some of them and its great to see that you are reading up on everything. Look forward to your next post so that I can respond accordingly.

And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting. My points have been clear, no statistics justify it, difficult to enforce and it's limiting a right we have today. Since you are SO good at digging up posts of mine, I don't have time, please post some from me that I state that safety is the reason we don't want HB162. Darn, you got me, I may have said if everyone slows down, the waters may be more rough, I'll give ya that one.

[Island Lover]

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

.

All I ask is for quotes that are not edited or cropped to make them more appealing than they actually are to your cause..........

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?)
.

Can't really figure this sentence out but I think parts of it are inaccurate based on a quick look at the cases I could find. Typical.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{clip}

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

Again, after a quick look, in more than half of these accidents if not all alcohol was a factor. Why bring this up you ask? Full disclosure, you see not everyone agrees that a speed limit will help, even a little. You are presenting your "facts" to support your case. My problem with your facts is that some if not all of the accused seemed to have been intoxicated, leading me to believe that if they ignored the BWI laws, they would have ignored a speed limit.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org"...And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting.

On 4/6/05, in the thread you started to announce NHRBA, you said “Does Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire boaters need a non-profit organization...that promotes boating safety?”

Also on 4/6; “Anybody interested in helping shape an organization that ...is focused on promoting boating safety email me”

And on 4/7; “the group looks forward to your help to ...promote boating safety”

On 4/8; “I'm not about GFBL and certainly (sic) hope the NHRBA is not as well or I will get out.”

On 4/13; “I don't want NHRBA to be a GFBL focused membership.”

Again on 4/13; “look forward to working with you to talk about ideas such as boat limits, out of stater fees for using boats in NH, promoting safety, etc. even speed limits.”

On 12/6; “Well nhrba goals will be to continue to make boating safer.”

Sounds to me like a group hiding under the pretense of boating safety. Want more?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey.

Is this an "unqualified "yes""? Are you stating for the record that you are unaware of any polls conducted on behalf of those opposing HB162?

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

I am very concerned about this. So you joined over a year ago, that would make it before Jan 2005. Correct? I have just reveiwed the membership of all members since April of 2005 and all appear to be members today, except for 1. Are you stating you are that 1 person? I also searched our NHRBA forums for the word "rat", with no results, can you clarify the exact terminology used? The individual that was asked to leave, wanted to bring down NHRBA, not build it, even though the majority of its members wanted to vote against HB162. So, I'm calling your bluff on this one, if you can do some research like FJ, you'll know I helped start NHRBA over 2 years ago and know every little piece of information about it. So be careful that you don't tarnish your reputation on this forum for making false accusations that you can't defend. That is of course you are that 1 person! Then I can agree with you, sorry we didn't see eye FM.

As for FJ's question,
Is this an "unqualified "yes""?
I can say YES fro NHRBA, but I will check with the officers to double check to see if the other groups have.

Also thanks for the quotes, good ones (I stand by all of them), again I think a waste of your effort. I think your point was that NHRBA is a org that says its a safety org, but secretly wants to fight HB162. I'm telling you its a legislative monitoring org that will use its membership to promote boating safety ANY WAY it can. How much more obviously can I be, of course I want to promote boating safety, who doesn't, I have a 1 year son and 3 year old daughter, you think I want to take them boating on a crazy lake with maniacs doing 100mph everywhere, you're right, that's why I boat on Winnipesaukee, because that's not the reality. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people do it.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low. After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view? Of course these are just questions, but; Might they be trying to build up their membership numbers to make the opposition seem larger than it actually is? Might they be trying to confuse? Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

[Island Lover]

I said almost a year ago, not over a year ago. I found this so it may have been a little later than I thought.

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

As I remember it, I received the form and filled it out, then my posting privileges were removed and I was asked to leave so I never sent the money in.

My memory of the word was rat. There were several posts at that time talking about opposition strategy. There was no discussion of "boating safety", it was 100% anti speed limit.

I know you're not responsible for everything that was posted. But we both know what was going on then, so lets be honest.

[Woodsy]

All of this divisiveness is really getting old. HB-162 has really divided Lake Winnipesaukee. I really don’t think that I will change the minds of some people such as APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners. I intend to plead my case based on facts and statistics, not emotional rhetoric, muckraking, conspiracy theories and partial truths. Let’s just stick to the facts…

There is a link above to the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report on Boating Safety Statistics. I have also included a link to a Boater Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

I strongly suggest that you read both documents in their entirety. It is pretty amazing the educational information contained in those reports.

In 2004 there were approximately 12,781,476 registered boats in the United States. There were 4904 accidents resulting in 676 fatalities and 3363 injuries. Of the 4904 accidents reported, 401 had excessive speed listed as the primary cause of the accident, (approximately 8%) resulting in 39 fatalities (approximately 6%). The USCG definition of “Excessive Speed” becomes ambiguous at this point. The USCG does not put a number as to what speed is considered excessive. We do not know at what speed (estimated or otherwise) that these accidents occurred.

Here is what we do know as FACT!

1. BWI is the #1 cause of boating related fatalities, 109 fatalities (16.1% of fatalities) as a result of 296 accidents (7.2% of accidents). BWI ranked #6 based on number of accidents.

2. Hazardous Waters is the #2 cause of boating related fatalities, 57 fatalities (8.4% of fatalities) as a result of 312 accidents (6.3% of accidents). Hazardous Waters ranked #5 based on number of accidents.

3. Operator Inattention is the #3 cause of boating related fatalities, 55 fatalities (8.1% of fatalities) as a result of 562 accidents (11.4% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #2 based on number of accidents.

4. Careless/Reckless Operation is the #4 cause of boating related fatalities, 43 fatalities (6.3% of fatalities) as a result of 570 accidents (11.6% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #1 based on number of accidents.

5. Operator Inexperience is the #5 cause of boating related fatalities, 42 fatalities (6.2% of fatalities) as a result of 406 accidents (8.2% of accidents). Operator Inexperience ranked #3 based on number of accidents.

6. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating related fatalities, 39 fatalities (5.7% of fatalities) as a result of 401 accidents (8.1% of accidents). Excessive Speed ranked #4 based on number of accidents.

7. Passenger/Skier Behavior is the #7 cause of boating related fatalities, 26 fatalities (3.8% of fatalities) as a result of 291 accidents (5.9% of accidents). Passenger/Skier Behavior ranked #7 based on number of accidents.

8. Machinery System Failure is the #8 cause of boating related fatalities, 21 fatalities (3.1% of fatalities) as a result of 285 accidents (5.8% of accidents). Machinery System Failure ranked #8 based on number of accidents.

9. Rules Of The Road Infraction is the #9 cause of boating related fatalities, 13 fatalities (1.9% of fatalities) as a result of 188 accidents (3.8% of accidents). Rules Of The Road Infraction ranked #10 based on number of accidents.

10. No Proper Lookout is the #10 cause of boating related fatalities, 11 fatalities (1.6% of fatalities) as a result of 271 accidents (5.5% of accidents). No Proper Lookout ranked #9 based on number of accidents.


I certainly think that boating safety doesn't necessarily require speed limits. HB-162 only addresses a percentage of the #6 cause of boating fatalities. It does nothing to address any of the other Top 10 causes of boating fatalities.

We know for a fact that boating accidents are down this year (2005) on Lake Winnipesaukee even though the number of boats on the lake has increased. Boater Education laws work!

I am a member of NHRBA. I didn't join just because of HB-162. While I personally don't agree with a daytime limit at all, I might be swayed to accept a reasonable and prudent statute. I was in favor of the NWZ between Governor Is and Eagle Is. as I think it was/is one of the most congested spots on the lake.


Woodsy

[Island Lover]

#1, #3, #4 and #5 already have NH boating laws that are helping to reduce these fatalities. #2 is a natural condition, it's very hard to pass a law against "Hazardous Waters".

I urge the legislature to pass HB162 so we can start work on the #6 cause of fatalities.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

Good post, If I read that correctly IF YOU DON'T send your membership fee in, you are terminated. Honestly, where does it say "Sorry, we don't like your views therefore you are terminated." Self explanatory, thanks for the post.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view?

Simply lies, nice try, please post facts.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

Honestly, check with the Weirs Times, we paid them a bunch of money this summer, placing Boating Safety tips every week. Darn, you got me again, we do like boating safety in addition to legislative monitoring.

If you want to continue to tarnish this thread with this badgering, fine, else we can start a new one to continue this debate over lies vs. truths. Again, unless you are the 1 person I did ask to leave, besides that, not a single person was asked to leave.

And FJ, I confirmed with the NH Bass Federation and Marine Trade Association and no one knows of a survey besides the one. So apparently you know some double secret probation information that the opposition doesn't even know about.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Good post, If I read that correctly IF YOU DON'T send your membership fee in, you are terminated. Honestly, where does it say "Sorry, we don't like your views therefore you are terminated." Self explanatory, thanks for the post.

This email had nothing to do with my termination. I received this when I joined online. I am showing it to you as proof I joined.

About a week after I joined it was made clear to me that I was not welcome and I was no longer able to access the forum.

winnilaker - Are you claiming that speed limit supporters were not made unwelcome at NHRBA last spring?

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really don’t think that I will change the minds of some people such as APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners.

So you think it's only them that favor HB162? You can add me to that list although I honestly have nothing against hi performance boats or their drivers. We have a friend with a Ferrari. I love him and his car. Driving it was a great thrill. I just don't want him doing 90 in my neighborhood (or anywhere else except a racetrack). I also have a brother-in-law with a Skater racing boat and he's taken me on some amazing rides in Long Island Sound. I loved it but it certainly doesn't belong in a lake like this except on a closely controlled race course.

My PERSONAL feeling comes from decades of time spent on and around the lake. I PERSONALLY don't care about all your facts and counter-facts. A child on my street doesn't need to be hit before I do something about speeding drivers (and I did). Somehow we got the limit lowered, extra signs and increased enforcement without a single fact (accident) to support it. Would those speeding drivers say "where are the facts that children are in danger from speeding drivers"? Would a question like that have helped their cause? In that case facts weren't needed, just common sense.

It is obvious to me that the "need for speed" is just not compatable with thousands of small family runabouts, sailboats, canoes and kayaks. I would have supported a compromise but something has to be done and I don't see any other proposals on the table.

This is just one opinion from one non-agenda, non-performance boat hater, little person who sees a problem. You may not like to hear it Woodsy but I think there are lots of us out there. We're not here arguing with you but the calls have been made and the letters have been written.

I've been reading all this with amusement but this is my last post on this subject. You can make up anything you want about why I feel the way I do but you'd be wrong.

J

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All of this divisiveness is really getting old. HB-162 has really divided Lake Winnipesaukee.

Woodsy, you are surely right about that point, but then look what you say and do next;

Originally Posted by Woodsy

...APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners.

You cause the very divisiveness that you abhor by repeatedly mistating the motives of the supporters and calling us liars. I believe your reasoning for opposing HB162. I can't see into your mind, so trust that you speak the truth about your motives. I agree that we just disagree about speed limits and the effect they will have. I don't call you a liar or put words in your mouth about your motives as you repeatedly do to us. We all keep asking for the same respect from you as we give you in this regard, but can't seem to get it. Everyone I have discussed HB162 sees it as a safety issue (not to say that an anti-cigarette boat reason or any other reason would not be as valid as a safety reason if coming from one of the lake's owners...one man - one vote). Some supporters are performance boat owners but are happy to go 45 in them because they believe it would be safer. Do you feel they hate themselves? I have never met a person who said "I support HB162 because I have a personal issue with high performance boats, and I just plain don’t like them or their owners."

[overlook]

You left on your own, You did not like the way your post were rebutted.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

winnilaker - Are you claiming that speed limit supporters were not made unwelcome at NHRBA last spring?

This is getting old, but I will continue to respond as long as I'm addressed. NHRBA welcomes ALL boaters, even speed limit supporters, sail boaters, you name it, you'd be surprised by the variety of members we have now. I will state on the record right here and right now, NHRBA will NOT welcome people who are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA. Sound familiar to some of you? I think I saw the term "pathetic" used by Fat Jack, I liken that to the people who tried to join and use fake names and addresses in the hope to gain inside information. Were you one of those people? I have 17 people who have registered but never sent in their membership forms out of 140 registrations, I guess it wouldn't be too hard for me to start calling those folks to find out which one you were. But why go through all that effort, who really cares. The biggest complaints we got so far was, Why aren't we doing more to fight House Bill 162, but that's about it.

[Island Lover]

Is that a yes or a no?

Sounds like a no.

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack,

I have never called you or anyone else on this board a liar! I am not going to get into a p*ssing contest with anyone as to what their beliefs are. I respect everyones opinion, and quite frankly devote alot of time defending and explaining an opposing opinion regardless of how unpopular it is. However, I do think the motives of some of those posters I mentioned is very clear. They don't like performance boats or thier owners. Plain and simple.

Rep. Jim Pilliod the sponsor of HB-162 has stated "It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them." He doesn't know what boat I own or how big it is, other than its manufactured by Donzi as I told him in the e-mail I sent him. I think Rep. Pilliods intent is VERY CLEAR... he doesn't like hi-performance boats and wants them off Lake Winnipesaukee.

In order for speed be a "Safety Issue", as the Winnfabs claim it is, one would need statistics and facts to bolster that claim. You would have accident reports and statistics showing an increase in boating accidents, especially those relating to excessive speed. The problem is, there aren't any statistics or facts that bolster your claim. In fact there were less accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee last year than in the year prior. I ask again, if you have those facts or statistics, please post them.

. This whole mess has been simmering for some time, but it came to a head with the Hartman/Littlefield accident. Its kind of like blaming the car instead of the driver or perhaps the gun and not the guy who pulled the trigger. Perhaps the anger towards Littlefields and the Hi-Performance boating community regarding the Hartman accident should be better directed? It wasn't any other boater who served alcohol to Danny Littlefield that night. It was none other than the flag bearer of the Pro HB-162 community Rusty Mclear & Alex Ray's Common Man Restaurant chain. Maybe you should question them as to what thier alcohol policy is? Danny Littlefield was obviously overserved. I am sure that will come out in civil lawsuit of some sort.

One ardent HB-162 supporter, routinely posts pix and approximately 1/2 the story. He tends to leave out other contributing factors to the accident such as alcohol consumption. Kind of reminds of the guy at the Moultonborough Hearing who told the story of the guy in the hi-performance boat who was going so fast he ran into an island. After telling the whole story, the the board asked one simple question... was alcohol involved. Sheepishly the guy answered yes. He obviously omitted that little fact from his story.

To quote yet another ardent HB-162 supporter "There is definitely a prejudices involved. I am prejudiced against boats that are to big, to fast, and to noisy for a crowded lake. But mostly I dislike the "get out of my way" attitude that can be displayed by any boater but is a serious problem when he is operating a GFBL."

Boats have accidents. So does every other machine ever operated by a human being. If your going to use accidents, post the whole story, not just the muckraking tidbits.

We have speed limits on our roads, because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents and fatalities. The speed limit posted is directly related to the line of sight distance a driver can see. I don't have an issue with that as most roads, especially here in New England have a very narrow line of sight measured usually 1/4 mile or less. Interstate Highways are obviously different. Visibility on the Lake Winnipesaukee is 360 degrees, measured in MILES! There are very few places on the lake where one has any sort of restricted visibilty (weather not withstanding).

We in NH have speed limits on our snowmobile trails because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents. I suppose going down a trail on a 500lb snowmobile with lots of immovable objects (trees) less than 6' away at speeds greater than 45 could be considered hazardous. I have gone off the trail at speeds less than 45 and I can tell you its not fun. We do not have a snowmobile speed limit on our lakes however, because there is not any data to support one. (I think there are two lakes in the state with a speed limit, one in Concord, & one in Pittsburgh)

We in NH do not have a helmet law for motorcyclists, even though it has been statistically proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities.

We in NH do not have a seatbelt law for automobiles, even though they have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents.

Jan, I applaud that you were able to have the speed limit on your street lowered. Considering cars and children its not a bad thing, and it probably inconveinces a few people, and only for the short period of time they may be on that particular stretch of road. There are facts and statistics to bolster your speed limit reduction. I am sure the number of children in the neighborhood was also a contributing factor. HB-162 however, does not inconvience a few people traveling down a side road. It affects EVERYONE who boats in NH, regardless of where or how they boat.

In fact I am not opposed to limiting my personal freedom when it is deemed necessary by facts & statistics. I have a serious problem with a limitation on my freedom when there are no tangible facts or statistics.

I ask again... post some facts & statistics!

Woodsy

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Is that a yes or a no?

Sounds like a no.

My explanation is self explanatory. Are they speed limit supporters that are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA? Be careful how you reply, I have lots of interesting factual information to back up my reply!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Are they speed limit supporters that are disingenuous, deceitful,

Aren't we all? (asked facetiously)

Originally Posted by winnilaker

use fake names

Is "Winnilaker" your real name?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I have lots of interesting factual information to back up my reply!

We did too, until it was all deleted. And since you've brought it up, did you ever follow through on this at OSO?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Would you like me to post a new thread there? Will that really make a difference to everyone?
Response from Fat Jack
It will make a difference to me. Ask people to weigh in again on their feelings about the dangers of high speed boating, to recount all those deleted personal experiences with boating accidents and tragedies, to tell us again of friends that they have lost to boating, to repost all those photos of tragic acidents, to tell us again whether they feel that reasonable speed limits are justified in some cases. Start another poll like the one that was deleted that had about 67% of OSO's own members favoring a nighttime speed limit because they recognized things were getting out of hand and saw this as a necessity to "save their sport". Try to recreate all of the information that was lost by all the recent deletions if you are really sincere.
I also recall that you've been influential with that webmaster in the past in having posts removed and "lurkers" ejected, how about asking him to repost all of the stuff that was deleted?

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Is "Winnilaker" your real name?

Juvenile response.

As for OSO, I'll post to stop deleting posts, second that, I don't need to, Woodsy already did. As for replacing old posts, go find the information yourself, any boating accident anywhere in the US, should be public knowledge.

[rickstr66]

Not a regular contributer to this topic but I have chimed in from time to time. Woodsy made some great points in his post about statistics in reply to Fat Jack. I especially like his usage of the way things are done off the lake in reguards to problem situation on roads. Even another person said they got the speed limit on thier street lowered because it was proven with statistics that, that street alone had a problem with speed. Did the state then go and reduce speed limits on all streets? No. Same thing could be said for a given intersection, pick a place. The town gets complaints that a certian intersection is becomming dangerous and too congested. The town responds by laying those hoses across the street to gather data to see if in fact traffic is high for the current conditions at that particular intersection. Finding it warrents a change because STATISTICS/ DATA for THAT intersection says so, they install a traffic light. Do they go and install traffic lights at ALL intersection in the state now? Nope. Same for a stretch of road. Stats show speed limit for THAT stretch of road is too high because of accidents on THAT stretch of road. State lowers speed limit on THAT stretch of road only. Not all roads in the state and they do it only when the stats/data prove a need to at that location.

[Fat Jack]

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

Now thats a quote, you said it all.
Everybody stay in there own state?
Next there own town?
Then stay in your house?

You First Fat Jack.

[ApS]

NOT!

Yeah, he was going 60-MPH when he collided with the other boat -- causing a fatality. So what? He was drunk!

Case...after case...after case...of excessive-speed fatalities have been dismissed here, using The Alcohol Excuse.
Aren't we drinking-while-boating responsibly? —Baja Bob
Is everybody doing it?
Does it go with the territory?

This summer, a drunken boating safety instructor drove his boat into his lake's shoreline, injurying one passenger and killing another passenger. It was a 60+MPH nighttime crash.

Pray tell: How do you keep liquor from performance-boaters' heads?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

"... I'll post to stop deleting posts, second that, I don't need to, Woodsy already did. As for replacing old posts, go find the information yourself, any boating accident anywhere in the US, should be public knowledge."

Boating accidents have a brief life on the Internet. While boating forums will maintain accident accounts for an indefinite period, they can be lost or deleted if viewed as harmful to their "sport". (Or moved to a section off-limits to most inquiring eyes).

If an on-line newspaper reports it, they will archive it after only a month or two. They place it under a heading you must search for -- yourself. (And then you must select the correct one using their headline). You will then be charged for each newstory -- usually, $3 per article per day. In the Littlefield case, the reporting went on for months -- then years.

New Hampshire's Marine Patrol had only that one Internet entry, (about the highest national accident rate per acre AND per 1000 registered boats). With so many registered boats, and such a short boating season, it makes sense.

If you want Lake Winnipesaukee accident reports, or "facts", I'm at a total and complete loss as to where to point you. Missouri and Illinois have excellent accident reporting sites.

Federally, the most recent National Transportation "Recreational Boating Fatalities" figures are from the year 2000. (Too easily dismissed here).

Regarding deleted posts, the most-missed ones were those relating to vote-rigging in Forum polls and in newspaper speed-limit polls; however, there's countless scandalous posts still remaining. The cleanup started this summer, because "The Word" had already gone out. The site even asked that their avatars be "cleaned-up".

If they're needed again, I have reams of deleted stuff from Donzi, Scream&Fly, and OSO sites, going back about 18 months. It's not for nothing they were called the Marine Mafia.

If these hardcopies are not needed again, maybe we can make a Time Capsule for them.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

Getting a law removed is harder than getting one passed , no matter how rediculous or unnecessary it is. Because this would be ,to a politician , like admitting that you were wrong . Heaven forbid a politician ever admit to anything .

Down here in my state , we defeated speed limit laws last year. Some influential "money" person moved to waterfront property and when spring came decided they didn't like the noise . They pulled some strings and got a bill introduced to have speed limits on the entire ICW from Manasquan to Cape May AND all other inland tidal waters in the state
The opposition presented documented facts and figures calmly and logically while the Pro people acted just as a bunch on here are doing , with partial truths and scare tactics.
The powers that be , ruled in favor of NO Speed Limit and gave the guy who started the whole contoversy his very own NWZ in front of his house. Perhaps that's what some of you need.

[ApS]

You're right, Cal.

They also removed noise limits.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

They also removed noise limits.

HUH
Who removed what noise limits????

[Woodsy]

I will ask again politely for the Pro HB-162 side to post FACTS and STATISTICS!

I have posted facts from the USCG and the NTSB. Others have posted that the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has dropped to 35 accidents.

APS,
You claim to have reams of accident data. Feel free to post it! Make sure to tell the whole story, not just what you feel is relevant data. I don't think anyone has a problem with posting FACTUAL accident data. People tend to delete information when somebody like yourself uses that information in a less than forthright manner to further an agenda. If your going to post accident data, tell the whole story. The majority of accidents you post involve BWI as the primary cause, not excessive speed. You routinely opt not to post that. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who is under the influence is going to give a damn about a speed limit. You also opt not to post any accident data involving boats other than Hi-performance or PWC.

You have also posted the link to one document, issued by the NH Marine Patrol in 1998... over 7 years ago! PRIOR TO THE SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION LAW. Yet since the enactment of the SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION requirement, the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has continued to steadily drop, down to 35 accidents in 2005.

The thread over on OSO listed a total of 50 accidents over 4 years, nationwide, and one or two of those listed were duplicates. That averages out to 12.5 accidents per year nationwide! Very few of the accidents listed had excessive speed as the primary cause of the accident. Most were BWI.

I have no problem with accidents being posted. Boats and PWCs have accidents, so do cars, trucks, motorcycles, atvs, snowmobiles, aircraft, industrial machinery, and any other sort of equipment. Anything operated by a human is going to have some sort of accident rate. The point I am trying to make is that the accident rate for boats is low to begin with, and its even lower when you single out accidents caused primarily by excessive speed.

Please stick to the facts and statistics...

Woodsy

PS: Fat Jack: Telling someone not to get involved up here is not playing nice. I highly doubt you have a NH Voter registration card! The forum is open to all.

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HB-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one! I have posted data from the United States Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board.

In your post above you bring up thinly veiled references to the Littlefield/Hartman accident. Specifically the first two points you are truying to make. However here is one of your own quotes from another thread.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

We all know that you can drive through speed traps on Rt 93 at 5 or 10 MPH over the speed limit and not be stopped. The same will be true on the lake.

So if you can drive 5-10MPH over the limit with no penalty, how would this have changed the terrible outcome of that night? It is well documented, that if a person is willing to operate a vehicle while under the influence, they really have no regard for any other laws.

As far as your other points go, prevailing conditions at the time of the accident are paramount. Look at the categories the U.S. Coast Guard uses to delineate accident causes. Driving a boat while intoxicated is considered a primary accident cause. 15MPH in a dense fog can be considered excessive speed. Operator Inattention is a primary cause of accidents (thats what Danny Littlefield was convicted of), Operator Inexperience is a primary cause (most likely the primary cause of accidents in which the boats flipped), Hazardous Waters (probably the cause of alot of the kayaking/canoeing deaths), the list goes on.

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

I was at the R, R & D committe meeting when they asked the bills sponsor, Rep. Pilliod that exact question. And this is a FACT, he reply was "NO, I do not!"

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

You forgot to mention that you rationalize data to support your cause. Each "rationalization" above is part of the truth, discounted and left out of your data because you deem it unimportant. You try to show the only cause of problems is speed over 45 mph day / 25 mph night. Your whole case is based upon the same type of rationalizations that you say discredits the anti-speed limit crowd. That's why it is so easy to discredit you, you don't tell the whole truth.

The data you present is a bunch of half truths. Very easy to expose with a little research. Present the whole story and let people decide, stop distorting and sensationalizing to prove your point.

The true complete "facts and statistics" do not support your cause.

And while I'm at it:

The speed limit will :

NOT Stop bad behavior
NOT Reduce the number of boats on Winni
NOT stop shore erosion
NOT make canoeing / kayaking safer.
NOT lower an already low death rate on winni
NOT make the people who want NO BOATS on Winni happy.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!...

This is a perfect example of your spin Dave. Go look at the first post in this thread. US Coast Guard statistics

I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover,

What is your point? How am I spinning anything? The Coast Guard did a great job with that report. I merely re-organized the report based on the number of fatalities! BWI was the #1 cause of accidents resulting in death!

I also think the NTSB Safety Alert speaks volumes!

Where is your data & statistics to support your position on HB-162?

You should read page 34 of the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report. It has yet more interesting facts...

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Our Illustrious neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, has 150,683 registered boats. In 2004 they had 55 accidents, resulting in 9 deaths and 35 injuries. They do not require a Safe Boater Certificate for adults...

Seems to me the numbers speak for themselves....

Post your data & statistics!

Woodsy

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

{snip} I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

I doubt you'll find anyone on either side of the argument that will dispute the above. What I and others have said is that this reality has no negative impact on safety. That Littlefield's speed that night is thought to be only 3 mph above the proposed limit means that to most of us, HB-162 would have made no difference in the outcome. The reasons for this have been hashed out but I can reiterate them if desired. If you really think that 25 is "safe" and 28 is "unsafe" then I'd like to know why. Moreover if I thought that the previous was true I'd be pushing for a much lower speed limit. If 25 or 45 mph had been arrived at by some analysis we could debate the inputs to that analysis or the analysis itself, but they weren't. They (HB-162 limits) were choosen for some reason and left unsupported. If I wanted to be unreasonable I could have proposed limits of 10 and 25 instead and then said any accident above those speeds was, by my definition, due to "excess" speed. But I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into my interpretation. I'd have to somehow prove that my limits were correct and any higher limits were unsafe.

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!