"Speed Limits are there to protect you" - USCGA

Island Lover · 01-05-2006, 11:40 PM

"Why do communities have Speed Limits on the Water" from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

http://www.auxguidanceskills.info/pr...eedlimits.html

I guess there WAS more than one article in the series!

(More spin please)

Woodsy · 01-05-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

"Why do communities have Speed Limits on the Water" from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

http://www.auxguidanceskills.info/pr...eedlimits.html

I guess there WAS more than one article in the series!

(More spin please)

Good Call... i missed that one...

Woodsy

ITD · 01-06-2006, 07:46 AM

Island Lover,

When are you going to find one that is pertinent to open water. Talk about spin. This one talks about a waterway/viaduct that are essentially no wake zones. Nobody is arguing no wake zones. Keep them coming I know you have more. Maybe you'll find at least one that supports your case for an open water speed limit.

islandAl · 01-06-2006, 07:59 AM

Or is it just the title that you like.
From the article I was unable to cut and paste so I will write a couple of lines

5mph speed limit ... navigable passageway was at best twenty feet across

The slower the boat (i.e. when a boat is not on plane): depending on hull configuration and design, the larger the wake. As a general rule. the larger the wake, the more dangerous the wake.

all of a sudden a series of jetski's and small runabouts come zooming along

end of quotes
Gee we already have laws about headway speed with in 150 feet of another boat, shore etc. does where ever they were? The jetski's and small runabouts (note, no GFBL) were already breaking the posted limit of 5mph, why would a 45 mph limit help?
My boat barely makes it over 50, but when at that speed, it also barely leaves a wake.

Island Lover · 01-06-2006, 08:44 AM

Here is a quote from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

"Speed Limits are there to protect you" - USCGA

Spin, Spin, Spin - Spin all you want, it's the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary saying that "Speed Kills" and "Speed Limits Protect You"!

Why don't you contact the USCGA and tell them how wrong they are.

islandAl · 01-06-2006, 08:57 AM

You grab a title that is meant to attact readers, just like the newspapers do, but the article is about jetski's and small runabout exceeding a 5 mph limit is a 20 foot wide channel and want to SPIN that into supporting a 45 limit on a large lake. We have NWZ and 150 limits already.

Fat Jack · 01-06-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

it's the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary saying that "Speed Kills" and "Speed Limits Protect You"!

IL,
Don't waste your time arguing. These articles are just very painful to some and they will look for any word or phrase in them that is unrelated to try to claim that the whole article is therefore unrelated. Their titles say it all. You could find an article written by the Admiral of the Coast Guard entitled "NH's Lakes Should Have Speed Limits" and these guys would argue with you that its title is irrelevant. I guess these authors just did not know how to entitle their own stories.

So let's see, you so far have the USCGA's National Public Affairs Division Chief saying "Speed Kills on the Water" and "Speed limits are there to protect you, other boaters, and water users, as well as the environment”. But this is irrelevant? It's too bad our Director of Marine Safety would not get on the same page with the USCGA.

ITD · 01-06-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Here is a quote from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

"Speed Limits are there to protect you" - USCGA

Spin, Spin, Spin - Spin all you want, it's the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary saying that "Speed Kills" and "Speed Limits Protect You"!

Why don't you contact the USCGA and tell them how wrong they are.

Spin, Spin, Spin, Island Lover, that is what YOU are doing. There is a term for this, its called projection, you take actions that you yourself use and accuse everyone else of doing the same thing.

You still haven't provided anything to substantiate your position keep trying though you just might find something.

A Speed Limit is not necessary on Lake Winnipesaukee.

This is only the first step in an attempt by exclusionists who want to remove all but their own boats from the lake using what ever SCARE tactics they can think of.

Cal · 01-06-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

This is only the first step in an attempt by exclusionists who want to remove all but their own boats from the lake using what ever SCARE tactics they can think of.

Give them a break. The facts are on the table and I'm sure the proper decision will be made. They're just attempting a last ditch effort to conclude their adjenda

Bear Lover · 01-06-2006, 10:14 AM

You guys should really drop this part of the argument and move on. Face it, you lost this round!

99% of the people that read these articles understand what they are saying. Only the 1% that read them looking for a reason to discredit them will come to the conclusions you are.

Are we supposed to read these articles and believe the auxilliary are saying "Speed Doesn't Kill" or "Speed Limits are not there to protect you"?

The message from the coast guard is that speed kills and speed limits protect you. You just can't spin that.

Isn't this whole thing pretty much over now anyway? Even the oppose 162 site has not been updated in months. They don't even have the revised version of HB162 posted. They still have the original, Winnipesaukee only, version that is no where near as good for their argument.

Woodsy · 01-06-2006, 10:46 AM

Bear Lover...

I really don't see any of this debate as a loss. You guys claim its a "Safety Issue". Yet I have been able to post facts and statistics from the U.S. COAST GUARD that refute that. If you are so sure of your victory, POST SOME FACTS AND STATISTICS!

If the USCG and USCGA are so pro-speed limit, how come to date you have been able to find and post only two articles? Neither of which are offical U.S. Government Publications. Why do they not publicy advocate for a nationwide speed limit? How conme the National Transportation Safety Bulletin makes no mention of excessive speed as a cause of boat accidents? Certainly is excessive speed were an issue the NTSB would be on top of it!

I have posted accident numbers and statistics from NH. Where are your numbers from NH? Where are your factsfrom NH? All this talk about spin yet your side cannot refute any of the numbers I posted.

I am still waiting for numbers... good thing I am not holding my breath!

The fight to protect my personal freedoms is never done!

Woodsy

winnilaker · 01-06-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

They don't even have the revised version of HB162 posted. They still have the original, Winnipesaukee only, version that is no where near as good for their argument.

Thanks, got that updated.

Bear Lover · 01-06-2006, 11:08 AM

Woodsy

All the numbers and statistics that a reasonable person needs have been posted. There will never be enough numbers and statistics for the few who are doggedly fighting a losing battle.

Fat Jack · 01-06-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why do they not publicy advocate for a nationwide speed limit?

This author, Wayne Spivak, has a pretty impressive resume;

from http://www.writers.net/writers/16814
"Mr. Spivak joined the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary (Freeport Flotilla 13-06, 1st Southern District) after spending seven years in the United States Power Squadrons. As a member of the USCG Auxiliary, Mr. Spivak, on the Flotilla (local) level is an Instructor, the Webmaster, and soon to be a Vessel Safety Examiner and Marine Dealer Vistor. He is also finishing the Boat Crew program, before undertaking the Coxswain program.
He is still a member of USPS (where he was the Chief Information Officer) and is also a member of the Canadian Power Squadrons. In addition, he is a consultant with, and the Chief Information Officer for the United Safe Boating Institute and as well as a member of the National Safe Boating Council. An accomplished freelance writer, Mr. Spivak has over 125 published articles under his belt."

Seems he should know of what he writes, and know how to entitle his articles to say what he means; "Speed kills on water".

Lakewinniboater · 01-06-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Isn't this whole thing pretty much over now anyway? Even the oppose 162 site has not been updated in months. They don't even have the revised version of HB162 posted. They still have the original, Winnipesaukee only, version that is no where near as good for their argument.

Far from it. It isn't updated because people from your organization were going on with ASSUMED names. Trying to be sneaky and infiltrate the opposition. If you really looked at this whole situation, you would see that some people aren't being reasonable. It isn't the american way to exclude people because they may not agree with you!

I hope that our politician will see their way threw to a healthy compromise.

Bear Lover · 01-06-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinniboater

Far from it. It isn't updated because people from your organization were going on with ASSUMED names. Trying to be sneaky and infiltrate the opposition. If you really looked at this whole situation, you would see that some people aren't being reasonable. It isn't the american way to exclude people because they may not agree with you!

I hope that our politician will see their way threw to a healthy compromise.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying. I assume by "your organization" you mean WinnFABS.

I don't know anything about people infiltrating the "Oppose HB162" website. But even if they are, how does that prevent winnilaker from updating the original version of the legislation to the revised version? Perhaps you misunderstood what was being discussed.

If you want to make an accusation please be more plain.

Seaplane Pilot · 01-06-2006, 01:02 PM

The anti-speed limit crusade is far from over. Better to keep quiet in these public forums and focus our attention and time on the decision makers in order to make them understand that a speed limit is a bogus attempt to "cleanse" the lake of undesireables...

rickstr66 · 01-06-2006, 01:02 PM

"Are we supposed to read these articles and believe the auxilliary are saying "Speed Doesn't Kill" or "Speed Limits are not there to protect you"?"

If the fire cheif writes an article titled "Town is at the highest risk ever for sever fire outbreaks" Then it goes on to say how the local fire department hasnt gotten a cost of living increase in years and guys are starting to choose a different line of work because of it. Is the town really at its highest risk ever for fires? Just because the title of an article says one thing doesn't mean thats the crux of the article and in the case of the aux. coast guard article posted it, certianly seems to fall under this catagory.

Island Lover · 01-06-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickstr66

"Are we supposed to read these articles and believe the auxilliary are saying "Speed Doesn't Kill" or "Speed Limits are not there to protect you"?"

If the fire cheif writes an article titled "Town is at the highest risk ever for sever fire outbreaks" Then it goes on to say how the local fire department hasnt gotten a cost of living increase in years and guys are starting to choose a different line of work because of it. Is the town really at its highest risk ever for fires? Just because the title of an article says one thing doesn't mean thats the crux of the article and in the case of the aux. coast guard article posted it, certianly seems to fall under this catagory.

So these articles are saying the exact opposite of what their titles are.

Do you people realize how absolutely ridiculous your arguments are becoming? I'm not sure I can continue along this line, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Any reasonable person reading your arguments is laughing.

ITD · 01-06-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

So these articles are saying the exact opposite of what their titles are.

Do you people realize how absolutely ridiculous your arguments are becoming? I'm not sure I can continue along this line, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Any reasonable person reading your arguments is laughing.

Quitter, you've proven nothing.

Lakegeezer · 01-06-2006, 09:27 PM

If safety is the point of argument - why isn't there more focus on seatbelt and cycle helmet laws first. Lack of wearing belts and helmets killed more people last year in New Hampshire than have been killed by speed on our lake in the last 100 years. If you must, focus on something that will make a difference.

Seaplane Pilot · 01-07-2006, 08:37 AM

Thursday's paper reported that the esteemed State Rep, Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) "co-sponsored a statute that spares teens under age 18 from getting the death penalty for capital murder. The age had been 17." Of course, this is the same State Rep that sponsored HB 162, which proposes the speed limits. Talk about rational thinking? So all you Winnfabs, next time some 17 year old punk bashes in the skull of one of your friends or family, you'll be relieved to know that he won't get the death penalty once convicted of capital murder. Rep Pilliod thinks that the 17 year old should not be responsible for his actions and therefore not receive the death penalty. This speaks volumes about his sponsorship of HB 162's baseless, lame attempt to mandate a speed limit in the name of safety. He should be more concerned with the public's safety against 17 year old murderers that will now know they won't get the death penalty thanks to Rep Pilliod.

Island Lover · 01-07-2006, 10:11 AM

When you have lost the argument....

Change the subject!

KonaChick · 01-07-2006, 10:42 AM

How about those Patriots?

Fat Jack · 01-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Rep, Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) co-sponsored a statute that spares teens under age 18 from getting the death penalty for capital murder. The age had been 17.

SP,
I'm confused (as I usually get after trying to figure out what some of these posts are trying to say). Does this mean that boats going 125MPH across a crowded lake are safe? If a rep sponsors a bill that you do not agree with, are all the other bills that he has ever sponsored then invalid? What does a "capital punishment for minors" bill have to do with Lake Winnipesaukee? What does this bill have to do with HB162 except that maybe constituents from the same district asked the same rep to sponsor both? Are they considering adding a capital punishment provision to HB162? Good idea (said in jest).
Besides all that, if "the age had been 17", wouldn't that 17 year old have been immune from the death penalty before anyway?

01-05-2006, 11:40 PM	#1
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	"Speed Limits are there to protect you" - USCGA "Why do communities have Speed Limits on the Water" from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary http://www.auxguidanceskills.info/pr...eedlimits.html I guess there WAS more than one article in the series! (More spin please)

01-06-2006, 07:59 AM	#4
islandAl Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Mountonboro Posts: 200 Thanks: 12 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Do you bother to read your articles before posting Or is it just the title that you like. From the article I was unable to cut and paste so I will write a couple of lines 5mph speed limit ... navigable passageway was at best twenty feet across The slower the boat (i.e. when a boat is not on plane): depending on hull configuration and design, the larger the wake. As a general rule. the larger the wake, the more dangerous the wake. all of a sudden a series of jetski's and small runabouts come zooming along end of quotes Gee we already have laws about headway speed with in 150 feet of another boat, shore etc. does where ever they were? The jetski's and small runabouts (note, no GFBL) were already breaking the posted limit of 5mph, why would a 45 mph limit help? My boat barely makes it over 50, but when at that speed, it also barely leaves a wake.

01-06-2006, 08:57 AM	#6
islandAl Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Mountonboro Posts: 200 Thanks: 12 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	who is spinning what You grab a title that is meant to attact readers, just like the newspapers do, but the article is about jetski's and small runabout exceeding a 5 mph limit is a 20 foot wide channel and want to SPIN that into supporting a 45 limit on a large lake. We have NWZ and 150 limits already.

01-06-2006, 01:02 PM	#17
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Loose lips sink ships... The anti-speed limit crusade is far from over. Better to keep quiet in these public forums and focus our attention and time on the decision makers in order to make them understand that a speed limit is a bogus attempt to "cleanse" the lake of undesireables...

01-06-2006, 01:02 PM	#18
rickstr66 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 63 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Bear Lover "Are we supposed to read these articles and believe the auxilliary are saying "Speed Doesn't Kill" or "Speed Limits are not there to protect you"?" If the fire cheif writes an article titled "Town is at the highest risk ever for sever fire outbreaks" Then it goes on to say how the local fire department hasnt gotten a cost of living increase in years and guys are starting to choose a different line of work because of it. Is the town really at its highest risk ever for fires? Just because the title of an article says one thing doesn't mean thats the crux of the article and in the case of the aux. coast guard article posted it, certianly seems to fall under this catagory.

01-06-2006, 07:46 AM	#3
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	Island Lover, When are you going to find one that is pertinent to open water. Talk about spin. This one talks about a waterway/viaduct that are essentially no wake zones. Nobody is arguing no wake zones. Keep them coming I know you have more. Maybe you'll find at least one that supports your case for an open water speed limit.

01-06-2006, 08:44 AM	#5
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Here is a quote from the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary "Speed Limits are there to protect you" - USCGA Spin, Spin, Spin - Spin all you want, it's the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary saying that "Speed Kills" and "Speed Limits Protect You"! Why don't you contact the USCGA and tell them how wrong they are.

01-06-2006, 10:14 AM	#10
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	You guys should really drop this part of the argument and move on. Face it, you lost this round! 99% of the people that read these articles understand what they are saying. Only the 1% that read them looking for a reason to discredit them will come to the conclusions you are. Are we supposed to read these articles and believe the auxilliary are saying "Speed Doesn't Kill" or "Speed Limits are not there to protect you"? The message from the coast guard is that speed kills and speed limits protect you. You just can't spin that. Isn't this whole thing pretty much over now anyway? Even the oppose 162 site has not been updated in months. They don't even have the revised version of HB162 posted. They still have the original, Winnipesaukee only, version that is no where near as good for their argument.

01-06-2006, 10:46 AM	#11
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Bear Lover... I really don't see any of this debate as a loss. You guys claim its a "Safety Issue". Yet I have been able to post facts and statistics from the U.S. COAST GUARD that refute that. If you are so sure of your victory, POST SOME FACTS AND STATISTICS! If the USCG and USCGA are so pro-speed limit, how come to date you have been able to find and post only two articles? Neither of which are offical U.S. Government Publications. Why do they not publicy advocate for a nationwide speed limit? How conme the National Transportation Safety Bulletin makes no mention of excessive speed as a cause of boat accidents? Certainly is excessive speed were an issue the NTSB would be on top of it! I have posted accident numbers and statistics from NH. Where are your numbers from NH? Where are your factsfrom NH? All this talk about spin yet your side cannot refute any of the numbers I posted. I am still waiting for numbers... good thing I am not holding my breath! The fight to protect my personal freedoms is never done! Woodsy

01-06-2006, 11:08 AM	#13
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Woodsy All the numbers and statistics that a reasonable person needs have been posted. There will never be enough numbers and statistics for the few who are doggedly fighting a losing battle.

01-06-2006, 09:27 PM	#21
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Seatbelts and Cycle Helmets If safety is the point of argument - why isn't there more focus on seatbelt and cycle helmet laws first. Lack of wearing belts and helmets killed more people last year in New Hampshire than have been killed by speed on our lake in the last 100 years. If you must, focus on something that will make a difference. __________________ -lg

01-07-2006, 08:37 AM	#22
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 662 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Speed Limit & The Death Penalty Thursday's paper reported that the esteemed State Rep, Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) "co-sponsored a statute that spares teens under age 18 from getting the death penalty for capital murder. The age had been 17." Of course, this is the same State Rep that sponsored HB 162, which proposes the speed limits. Talk about rational thinking? So all you Winnfabs, next time some 17 year old punk bashes in the skull of one of your friends or family, you'll be relieved to know that he won't get the death penalty once convicted of capital murder. Rep Pilliod thinks that the 17 year old should not be responsible for his actions and therefore not receive the death penalty. This speaks volumes about his sponsorship of HB 162's baseless, lame attempt to mandate a speed limit in the name of safety. He should be more concerned with the public's safety against 17 year old murderers that will now know they won't get the death penalty thanks to Rep Pilliod.

01-07-2006, 10:11 AM	#23
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	When you have lost the argument.... Change the subject!

01-07-2006, 10:42 AM	#24
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	How about those Patriots?