Boat Speed Survey Results....

[Woodsy]

I went to the work session last night held at the Franklin Opera House. It was pretty interesting time, with more people against the speed limit than for it attending.

Here is the link to the article in the Citizen.. http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...041/-1/CITIZEN

The reporter got a few facts wrong, but overall its not a bad article. I was a little surprised at the average speeds on the lake...

Woodsy

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Marine Patrols data, simply put, proves there is no need for a speed limit! That data coupled with the fact that we had another summer on the Big Lake with no speed related incidents will hopefully help the legislators see the big picture. I was happy to see that we outnumbered the Pro Speed Limit supporters by at least 5 to 1. That tells me one thing, the general public has realized what was happening and now its obvious that this legislation was brought up by a Very Small special interest group.

[ApS]

From the Citizen article:

"...Gallagher said the Marine Patrol went into the survey without preconceived notions of the results. He said he neither predicted nor was surprised by the results..."

Hmmm. Let's see....

The Marine Patrol admits to:

1) Untrained radar operators,
2) Operating from marked patrol units,
3) In publically-disclosed locations,
4) Throwing out disagreeable speeds, and
5) Not surprised by the results.

What else is left to be said?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

From the Citizen article:

Hmmm. Let's see....

The Marine Patrol admits to:

1) Untrained radar operators,
2) Operating from marked patrol units,
3) In publicly-disclosed locations,
4) Throwing out disagreeable speeds, and
5) Not surprised by the results.

What else is left to be said?

This has to stop, did you read the rest of the article and by the way he said if there were to be a speed limit more would have to be trained, are you telling me you think they were not trained? Really the question should be how far away were they from the other boats. Take the results for what they were facts, and in fact if there were a speed limit law they would be out in the marked patrol boats to begin with, so that would be what you call a control on the experiment. Just because you are upset that the results came back not in favor of a speed limit you cannot put your own spin on it.
Again same as the other thread, it is the boater not the boat! and there are much more factors that contribute to the danger not just the speed and he even remarked that speed is not always dangerous.

Can't wait for a speed limit that when someone capsizes and Sea Tow has to get out there quick, but cannot because they are not authorized to go above 45mph like a marine patrol boat would be able to. But I guess there can be an exception to every rule. I guess they should stop making Bentley BMW's and Mustangs and whatever that go over the speed limit on the highway, better yet lets put governors on all vehicles relative to area speed limits.

[LIforrelaxin]

I read the article..... and what a load of bull.... as APS states the Data here is worthless.... Now I am not saying I support of don't support a speed limit... actually I am quite torn on this...... but lets look at the problems with the data gathering.....

The biggest problem was collecting data in known and announced area.... what did the boats do before and after they were in the measurement area........this nulls this study out right away...... It may or may not have effected peoples behavior but there is know what to prove that it didn't.....In other words the supporters of the speed limit still have a wide open door to plede thier case......

The second problem, was commenting that they through out some results.... well this tell a person of science that the experiment need to be reperformed.... you don't throw out results just because they maybe ambigous.... you report them and note them...... but the bottom line is they get reported in the results.... otherwise you open your study up to being questioned. Once again the door still open.....

I personally really don't have a big pull either way in this argument.... but if either side is ever really going to win things need to be done in such a manner so that doors get shut and grounds for arguements are not there.... until then look for this debate to go on and on......

[codeman671]

Wasn't it the supporters that were claiming that the radar technology used was certainly accurate enough to prove cases in court? I find it rather funny that APS contests the results of the findings.

It has been previously mentioned that MP has ran tests in unmarked boats, not to mention with the fact that the average captain bonehead on Winnipesaukee is probably not paying close enough attention to pick out a MP boat until they are on top of them anyhow.

Face it, the speed limit is not needed!

[fatlazyless]

Just took a look, and that old 1970's map that's thump-tacked to the wall of my bathroom shows a 'measured mile' along the north side of Rattlesnake Island. Now, what thinkums you about this? How' bout setting up one of those new radar reading speed limit signs which tells you how fast you be going, only set it up on a floating raft out there along-side Rattlesnake. That spot can be the designated 'go fast as Hell- Rattlesnake designated speed zone', and whenever anyone has a 'need for speed', they know where to go.

Likewise, home viewers can watch the go fast-be loud action on the SnakeEyes Cam. Is this a win-win-win-win for Winnipesaukee, or what? Gf-bl'ers, fast boat marinas, lake wide tourism, Marine Patrol law enforcement, the 'need for speed', the internet, New Hampshire tourism, the Mount Washington, & last but not least, all us go-fast gawkers-gophers & wannabees would all be winners with a 'need for speed' venue all in one spot!

Plus, Mitt Romney is an expert high-speed waterskier, so the White House will be represented out there by Rattlesnake Island.

[Woodsy]

APS & LI...

You guys are bit wrong in some of your assumptions, and thats because you weren't at the hearing and you are going by what the reporter wrote. The reporter didn't get it completely correct. The MP actually did a pretty thorough survey and identified a few issues.

Some of the stuff you missed because you weren't there...

1. There were 6-7 test zones... of them, only 2 were public knowledge! Those two were the designated speed limit zones, Bear Is/Meredith Neck and Rattlesnake Is/Mainland. The MP actually connected data from a bunch of other places such as Paugus Bay, top half of Alton Bay, between Governor's Is and Timber Is and Center Harbor. I think they also tested radar out in the broads between Rattlesnake and Welch, as it was marked on Capt Gallagher's map, but I am not sure. (I sat right behind/left of Capt. Gallgher at the meeting) All of these places had one thing in common... the boat traffic pattern was such that the use of the radar gun(s) was OPTIMIZED!

2. The MP did not admit to untrained radar operators. In fact Capt. Gallagher stated just the opposite. There were 2 types of radar guns, Doppler and Laser. The MP officers were trained in the use of both. BUT as Capt. Gallagher pointed out there is a BIG difference between radar trained and radar certified when it comes to the court system and getting a conviction. Radar Certified officers have to be certified in the use of radar according to NH Police Training and Standards. There is a certification program in place for the old style Doppler Radar. However, there is no certification program for Laser Radar as of yet.

3. Capt Gallagher also pointed out the flaws inherent in each radar system. Both systems work best when the boats are traveling in a straight line towards or away from the MP unit. The Doppler Radar's biggest flaw was that it is indiscriminate. He used this example: You have 15 boats within range of the radar unit, you point and shoot at what the MP officer believes is an offending boat. Unfortunately, there is no way of telling (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the doppler radar actually tracked the alleged offending boat. You need to have "beyond a reasonable doubt" to secure a conviction in the courts.

Capt. Gallagher stated that the Laser Radar was difficult to operate in rough and choppy conditions due to water/weather conditions or boat wake. I suppose its got to be pretty hard to keep a small laser dot on a boat 1500+ feet away that is moving up down and all around, from a platform that is doing the same thing. I did notice the SP in MA on RT 3 the other day using laser radar, and the officer was standing still in a shooting stance (like if he were shooting a rifle) and targeting vehicles... so there is obviously something to this?

4. The data that the MP did not include in the report was from boats that were transversing the radar unit. In other words, they were traveling across the nose of the unit from left to right or vice versa with very little change in distance relative to the MP unit. Because of the law of cosines, this would result in a zero/error or very low MPH readout depending how acute the angle. Radar (laser or doppler) works best when the boat is moving toward or away from you in straight line. Any deviation from a straight line results in an error in the readout. Because of the law of cosines, this error is always lower than the actual speed of the vehicle (a boat in this case). So APS, in fact the MP threw out the lowest readings....

The meeting briefly touched on cost, especially when the Capt. Gallagher told the committee that the MP wanted 2 officers per radar patrol. I assume this is for safety reasons, one MP officer to drive the boat and maintain a proper watch, and one MP officer to operate the radar gun. The commitee thought that was rather expensive and Capt. Gallagher concurred. They also touched on estimating the speed of boats by eye and that led to a brief discussion of enforcability, with Capt Gallagher reiterating that there is a BIG difference between using radar for the survey and using radar to secure a conviction. He again brought up the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The commitee briefly discussed the "reckless & negligent operation" statute and how it relates to speed and other factors. Chairman Flanders was noticably irritated and pretty much aquashed that line of questioning.

Hope this helps to fill in some of the missing info...

Woodsy

[Resident 2B]

Woodsy,

Nice job on reporting on the meeting and the details that the newspaper did not get into.

With what you have reported, I do not see how any reasonable person could concluded the study was flawed. To me, the study was appropriate and conducted in a reasonable manner.

The issues around the use of radar on the water are real. On the water is much different than on a roadway where the cars are traveling right at the radar unit. Radar can only measure the velocity relative to the radar unit making the use of radar on the water fairly ineffective, unless the vessel being measured is by itself and traveling right at the radar unit.

Regardles of the technical issues with radar on the water, the collected data clearly shows there is no problem to solve since the speeds are well under the limits being proposed. To me, this would be a costly and time consuming way to catch the very few boats exceeding a 45/25 MPH limit.

There has to be many better ways to spend our hard earned tax dollars.

R2B

[lifeonthefarm]

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...eedsurvey.html

I was able to find a copy of the report online available for reading

[Dave R]

I gotta confess, it's a much more comprehensive study than I thought they'd do. The results certainly reflect what I have been witnessing for years. I cannot imagine any Senator voting for a speed limit after reading the that study, they'd look like an idiot.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I cannot imagine any Senator voting for a speed limit after reading the that study, they'd look like an idiot.

Kinda like some of the supporters and their twisted truths

[fatlazyless]

As you probably know, the Winnipesaukee summer speed zone study was proposed and initiated in March by Dept of Safety Commissioner Richard Flynn. It was his last directive before retiring from a highly distinguished 30+ year career as head of the Dept of Safety.

Flynn, a Republican, was not renominated by Gov Lynch and for the first time in a hundred years the Governor's Council has a 3-2 Democratic majority which gave Gov Lynch the juice to can Flynn. Flynn, at age 78, said he was not ready to retire.

It's very possible the the House of Reps, and Senate, both with a new found Democratic majority will want to send a message to their Republican counterparts that they are in charge and that what was Commissioner Flynn's last charge will not stand........period!

After all, who's the boss of the legislature now, huh, who, huh, who, huh, who..... which party is in charge today?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...After all, who's the boss of the legislature now, huh, who, huh, who, huh, who..... which party is in charge today?...

Let me see if I can get this straight.

This is your reasonable and rational response to a comprehensive study conducted for 135 hours over a period of fifty five days by an untold number of trained law enforcement officers that were observing and detailing nearly 4000 vessels?

What part of intelligent debate am I missing here?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Skip

Let me see if I can get this straight.



What part of intelligent debate am I missing here?

Obviously the intelligent part

[LIforrelaxin]

Woodsy, thank you for the further information...and lifeonthefarm thankyou for the link to the actual report.....

The information is definately interesting....and seems to support the fact that a speed limit really isn't neccessary.... however as I said in my original post the way that this sampling was conducted there are holes for the speed limit advicates to continue to pick at.(which is all I was trying to point out).... Don't look for this debate to stop anytime soon.....although I truely wish it would..... but then again once the speed limit debate stops the next ban wagon will be boat size.... I hate to say this but this stuff is never going to stop.....

[Skip]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

...Woodsy, thank you for the further information...and lifeonthefarm thankyou for the link to the actual report....

It was very refreshing to see an individual listen to other points of view and take the time to further research the subject and perhaps look at the subject differently after absorbing additional factual information.

My hat is off to you LIforrelaxin for not only taking the time to better inform yourself, but also sharing that knowledge with the rest of us.

Ah, reasonable discussion of a highly controversial & emotional issue. And some thought it couldn't be done!

[fatlazyless]

In the political legislative process of making a new law, sending a proposed bill to a committee for further study is often used as a ploy to delay and hopefully stop the proposed law.

In Sept '06, the NH Lakes Assoc filed an initiative petition w/ at least 25 signatures from every Winnipesaukee waterfront town with the DOS as specified by NH rsa in an effort to effect a 45day/25night mph speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. The Dept of Safety held public hearings on the issue and decided in March '07 to conduct on-the-water, in-the-summer, studies by the Marine Patrol for a period of eight years.

The unanswered question is: Was the intent to study or to delay?

Proponents and opponents of the speed limit include NH Lakes Assoc, WinnFABS, NH Marine Trades Assoc, and NH Recreatioinal Boaters Assoc, and of course many individuals from the Winnipesaukee area.

In 1989, 2005, 2006, and 2007, all attempts to create a Winnipesaukee speed limit have died in the NH legislature. With the big political change that took place in the Nov '06 election, and the March '07 retirement of DOS Commissioner Richard Flynn, the outlook for a speed limit to pass have never been better.

...time will tell, it always does.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

In the political legislative process of making a new law, sending a proposed bill to a committee for further study is often used as a ploy to delay and hopefully stop the proposed law.

The Dept of Safety held public hearings on the issue and decided in March '07 to conduct on-the-water, in-the-summer, studies by the Marine Patrol for a period of eight years.

The unanswered question is was the intent to study or to delay?

Perhaps the Dept of Safety realizes that the cry for speed limits is not about safety and used the political ploy to envoke common sense. The cry for another nanny law has its roots in revenge against a Baja incident. PAC money has been used to whip up fear among the sheeple. The MPs need to focus their limited budget on real safety issues, such as violations of the right-of-way regulations.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by AC2717

"...Take the results for what they were facts...,"

As factual scientific studies go, this file of the MPs is a nice color.

"There were times when the surface of the water was so irregular because of high volume of boat traffic that it was extremely difficult to aim the radar unit"—NHMP

The moment the MPs found that their platform couldn't produce consistent or reliable data, they erred in not moving the test zones.

Next time, the MPs must clock from a stable platform or island to produce dependable readings in heavily trafficked areas. Under any conditions, the presence of a marked patrol boat affects sampling—even with no speeding laws to enforce. When "irregular water" is present, the average speed of your study group will decrease—three errors.

When this happens, discontinue monitoring—and move the site.

"The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both speedboats and PWCs, data collected during the day and the night."—NHMP

PWCs were included in the database?

The MPs could have been clocking the very same PWC ten times an hour! Just a handful of PWCs can skew the basis for "number of boats studied" during the day, and are completely missing from the MP database at night!

Absent or "cooked" sampling—even if unintentional—is an error.

"A total of 13 boats were traveling over 25-MPH after 8:00 PM which represents 20.96%."—NHMP

That's nice...how fast, and why is that mystery speed—so easily added to the graph—missing from the graph?

What happens late at night, when offenders would be expected to be really tanked?

"Statistical results of sampling".—NHMP

Poker Runs produce the highest average speeds on the lake. Why are they so clearly absent from "the sampling"? Was it a considered a "race"—and is somehow exempt from sampling? Whatever—to overlook them is still an error.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...as I said in my original post the way that this sampling was conducted there are holes for the speed limit advocates to continue to pick at. (which is all I was trying to point out)...

1) The above observations represent just half of what I found this morning. Topics like "samplings from both directions", "PWCs", "slow boats", "averaging", "unmarked patrol boats" and "cosines" have been saved for later.

2) Remember which NHMP official rejected speed limits—and then flip-flopped like a fresh-caught bluegill?

The data collection and funding should have gone to a group accustomed to a worthwhile, independent, unbiased and scientific study—like UNH.

Was it wrong to have NHMP conduct a study that they had previously indicated an unwillingness to support?

Of course: that's why this very first oversight—a self-administered study—was really the most serious error.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The data collection and funding should have gone to a group accustomed to a worthwhile, independent, unbiased and scientific study—like UNH.

C'mon, we all know that if UNH or any other reputable group, did a study, and it failed to show a need for a speed limit, you'd find all kinds of faults with it too.

One has to wonder why Winfabbs and their ilk have not produced any fact based reports, they've surely had enough time. Maybe they haven't reported because they've studied actual speeds as well...

[robmac]

Woodsy,thank you for bringing this information to light. I now have a much better understanding of what happened at the meeting and how MP compiled the information. Great job

[fatlazyless]

So, Tuesday Oct 23 is a big day for HB847, because the NH House of Reps - Transport Committee, something like 15 members, is supposed to take a vote on what they recommend be done w/ the bill.

Something tells me that it will get a positive recommend, this time around.

Let's see, there are many lakes in the state that already have speed limits, except for Lake Winnipesaukee, which gets clogged up with hundreds of various different types, sizes, and styles of boats and boater abilities, and it does not have any speed limit. Is this a safe situation?

Plus, going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed.......45 is a fast speed for a boat! What's with 'the need for speed', anyway? Something I never understood?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Something I never understood?

And probably never will


BTW Is it MONDAY the 22nd or TUESDAY the 23rd? There is no Tuesday the 22 this month.

Another wrong fact from a proponent

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Let's see, there are many lakes in the state that already have speed limits, except for Lake Winnipesaukee, which gets clogged up with hundreds of various different types, sizes, and styles of boats and boater abilities, and it does not have any speed limit. Is this a safe situation?

Yes, it's quite safe.

[AC2717]

It must be safe considering all the activity and minimal incidents. ie in this case boat vs boat accidents

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Yes, it's quite safe.

The most unsafe acts I've seen have had nothing to do with speed.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Let's see, there are many lakes in the state that already have speed limits, except for Lake Winnipesaukee, which gets clogged up with hundreds of various different types, sizes, and styles of boats and boater abilities, and it does not have any speed limit. Is this a safe situation?

Plus, going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed.......45 is a fast speed for a boat! What's with 'the need for speed', anyway? Something I never understood?

Most of those other lakes are a small fraction the size of Winni. Your logic does not extrapolate very well. I've also never really felt the lake was "clogged".

It's nice that the simple fact that you don't understand this issue doesn't prevent you from inflicting your opinion on the world.

[Bear Islander]

[tongue in cheek]

The report is great news for those afraid that a 45/25 speed limit would ruin the economy and inconvenience thousands.

If such a small percentage of boats are going fast, then only a very small minority will be required to slow down when the law goes into effect.

It's incredible that the Marine Patrol did such a comprehensive job when you consider how many times we have been told on this forum that using radar on the lake was impossible.

[/tongue in cheek]

[fatlazyless]

HB847, when it get's passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, becomes law on Jan 1 2008, and a speed violation gets reported to your car driving license. So, right now is a good time to get going with your performance boat consignment sale down in south Florida somewhere, and then get yourself one of those 16' long distance kayaks, and a box of granola. You'll be a better person for it and be in better shape next summer. Say goodbye to that beer belly!

[ApS]

Continuing on the MP study:

6) The MPs recorded speeds in two-way traffic...

Even Captain B would slow down after going by the first time—much less those who could suffer points added to their insurance premiums. (Returning boats would be alerted to the MP presence).

Zones shouldn't be selected to measure speeds in both directions—an error.

7) The MPs averaged the boat speeds...

Why were average speeds calculated to include boats going less than 10-MPH?

Slow boats are not a group known for collision risk and should have been excluded—an error.

8) The MPs announced radar speed detection zones...

You can't determine that speeds are down this year AND announce ongoing speed trials. (A really big error).

Warnings appeared for Lake Winnipesaukee on the Internet's ocean-racer sites!

9) The MPs arrived at figures measured-out to the hundredths...

Radar speeds were not measured out to "hundredths"—why are the average speeds measured to "hundredths"? Was it to put lipstick onto what is otherwise admittedly flawed data?

10) Results were thrown out by the MPs when a cosine was needed...

You calculate the cosine.

If you can't calculate the cosine, you shut off the radar and select an alternate effective study area in order to permit such calculations.

You never throw out results in a study—an error.

11) This season, the MPs added unmarked PWCs for the first time...

You can't determine a change in reckless boater frequency in 2007 by announcing that unmarked Marine Patrol units were added to Winnipesaukee for the first time.

Unless you want the data skewed, you don't change anything after a study is proposed—another error.

Originally Posted by Cal

The most unsafe acts I've seen have had nothing to do with speed.

How many made serious headlines?

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I've also never really felt the lake was "clogged".

I agree, but it's clearly becoming less "clogged".

The NMMA Boat Builders Association is advertising "Discover Boating" because America's Middle Class is leaving boating! Hmmm. 'Wonder why?

Is it because NAMMI has been adding weight and horsepower every year—and because boating is becoming speedy-scary as a result?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...APS & LI...You guys are bit wrong in some of your assumptions, and thats because you weren't at the hearing and you are going by what the reporter wrote. The reporter didn't get it completely correct. The MP actually did a pretty thorough survey and identified a few issues..."

Thank you for your input and opinion but much was already known—except for the taxpayer-purchase of extra radar—after a gift was already made of adequate radar for enforcement.

Originally Posted by Dave R

C'mon, we all know that if UNH or any other reputable group, did a study, and it failed to show a need for a speed limit, you'd find all kinds of faults with it too.

I'd even invite NMMA (boat builders) to audit a UNH study.

(UNH is already on Lake Winnipesaukee, BTW). http://www.uwex.edu/ces/csreesvolmon...yResearch.html

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

What's with 'the need for speed', anyway? Something I never understood?

I have never understood the go-fast concept of boating either, I spend much of my boating time around 30 MPH. I have also never understood quantum physics, the draw of golf, or the popularity of NASCAR; but I'm not trying to legislate against any of those just because I fail to understand them.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I agree, but it's clearly becoming less "clogged".

The NMMA Boat Builders Association is advertising "Discover Boating" because America's Middle Class is leaving boating! Hmmm. 'Wonder why?

Is it because NAMMI has been adding weight and horsepower every year—and because boating is becoming speedy-scary as a result?

Wouldn't less clogging result in a lower chance for accidents? (Less boats to supposedly run into each other).

Boating is in no way becoming a "speedy-scary" activity from everything that I can see.

It would be a somewhat natural assumption that as you add weight, you add horsepower in some proportion. I would surmise that boating may be dropping off as a recreational activity because of costs. Gas prices are going up, many Americans are close to maxing out their credit and budgets because they don't know how to manage money, family activities (which boating often is) seem to be on the decline with more dual-income households and kids involved in various activities that prevent people from having enough time to spend on the lake.

People being frightened away from boating because a small percentage of the overall boats have a capability to go fast (which is not used 100% of the time) would probably rank pretty low on an overall survey.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

Not sure about your tongue in cheek reference. Did you actually attend the work session in Franklin? If you had, then you would know that Capt Gallagher repeatedly testified to the Transportation Committee that the difficulty with radar is not so much the use of radar, but consistently proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly what boat you were clocking... if the MP cannot consistently meet the burden of proof in court of law, then the speed limit is costly and useless.

You stated "If such a small percentage of boats are going fast, then only a very small minority will be required to slow down when the law goes into effect." I am a member of this "small minority" and I have a HUGE problem with your spin/statement. I think there should be some justification before taking away or restricting an individual's personal freedom. Where is the justification? How do you justify the cost in $$$ and MP resources? Where is the cost study for HB-847? There WILL be costs associated with this bill, MP officer radar certification to NHSP standards, court costs, equipment purchase and maintainance etc... how is this supposed to paid for? Who is to "bear" (pun intended) the costs of HB-847? There is no provision for funding attached to this bill.

Woodsy

[ITD]

Cold hard facts, baby. Spin spin spin away, there is no speed problem on Lake Winnipesaukee, the data is in, the speed limit crowd is proven to be mistaken or worse. A speed limit will solve nothing, it will not have a positive impact on the lake, IT WILL MAKE THE LAKE A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE SHIFTING RESOURCES FROM EFFECTIVE PATROLS TO SPEED TRAPS. Don't be misled by the lies saying that the locations were announced, only two were. Don't be misled about the statistical BS being talked about, you can't figure an accurate average if you throw out all the boats travelling 10 MPH or less APS, you might as well throw out the speeds for all white boats and double the speeds for red boats.

If the speed limit law passes, it will be a travesty and the legislature will have been bamboozled.

[codeman671]

Wasn't the next session to discuss this today? Did anyone from here attend? Outcome?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Continuing on the MP study:

6) The MPs recorded speeds in two-way traffic...

Even Captain B would slow down after going by the first time—much less those who could suffer points added to their insurance premiums. (Returning boats would be alerted to the MP presence).

Zones shouldn't be selected to measure speeds in both directions—an error.

7) The MPs averaged the boat speeds...

Why were average speeds calculated to include boats going less than 10-MPH?

Slow boats are not a group known for collision risk and should have been excluded—an error.

8) The MPs announced radar speed detection zones...

You can't determine that speeds are down this year AND announce ongoing speed trials. (A really big error).

Warnings appeared for Lake Winnipesaukee on the Internet's ocean-racer sites!

9) The MPs arrived at figures measured-out to the hundredths...

Radar speeds were not measured out to "hundredths"—why are the average speeds measured to "hundredths"? Was it to put lipstick onto what is otherwise admittedly flawed data?

10) Results were thrown out by the MPs when a cosine was needed...

You calculate the cosine.

If you can't calculate the cosine, you shut off the radar and select an alternate effective study area in order to permit such calculations.

You never throw out results in a study—an error.

11) This season, the MPs added unmarked PWCs for the first time...

You can't determine a change in reckless boater frequency in 2007 by announcing that unmarked Marine Patrol units were added to Winnipesaukee for the first time.

Unless you want the data skewed, you don't change anything after a study is proposed—another error.


How many made serious headlines?


I agree, but it's clearly becoming less "clogged".

The NMMA Boat Builders Association is advertising "Discover Boating" because America's Middle Class is leaving boating! Hmmm. 'Wonder why?

Is it because NAMMI has been adding weight and horsepower every year—and because boating is becoming speedy-scary as a result?


Thank you for your input and opinion but much was already known—except for the taxpayer-purchase of extra radar—after a gift was already made of adequate radar for enforcement.


I'd even invite NMMA (boat builders) to audit a UNH study.

(UNH is already on Lake Winnipesaukee, BTW). http://www.uwex.edu/ces/csreesvolmon...yResearch.html

WOWIf that doesn't sound like a drowning man grabbing for anything he can , I don't know what does
If the politicos have any sense(which is questionable) I believe the speed limit bill will be setting with the sun in the western sky

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy

A couple of years ago you explained to me why Radar readings on the lake would be almost useless because they would read quite a bit less than the boats actual speed. Perhaps you should send that explanation to the MP so they will understand why their data is wrong.

Below is a partial quote and the link.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1820

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Bear Islander....

Call Kustom Signals and ask them.... specifically if the handheld radar you mentioned can determine the target vessels bearing and speed relative to the operating officer? I did! It can't! If it cannot do that then it cannot give an accurate reading of the target vessels speed. It is simple geometry! The Falcon Marine Radar is essentially a hand held radar that has been marinized, and by marinized I mean it gives speed readout in knots as well as mph and has been made water resistant. It does not and cannot give the target vessels bearing (course) relative to the officer. It will give you a range, however, that is measured in a straight line from the officer. See my diagram Radar #2. It seems mostly for use in enforcement of no wake zones hence the 1/10th MPH adjustment, where boats are forced to travel slower and within a marked lane of travel. See the similarity to highway use yet?

Laser Radar suffers from the same issues as electron based radar, in that in only works in a straight line, and cannot give the target vessels bearing relative to the MP officer. Laser also suffers a drawback when used against boats in that most boat surfaces are curved plastic, so the light does not reflect back properly.

And Woodsy, since you where there at the session please inform me. Was any of this data collected using unmarked boats?

[Dave R]

I'm trying to figure out why marked or unmarked boats would make a difference. There is no speed limit, why would anyone adjust their cruising speed due to the presence of a marked boat when they aren't breaking any laws? I never do.

APS, you really think the stats would be more accurate by throwing out any data below 10 MPH? Doesn't that break your own rule: "You never throw out results in a study"? I think the stats would be more to your liking, but not more accurate.

[ITD]

Now this speed limit crowd is saying that the radars are absolutely useless, in other words a speed limit is unenforceable. You people are unbelievable. Had the MP included data of boats measured at an angle, APS would crying that the data is skewed toward slower speeds. Well people I don't think this study could have been done any better.

3800+ boats is a huge sample. The SL crowd has been telling us for two years it's like the wild west out there with boats flying everywhere. I would think if that were true we would see at least let's say 10% travelling above 50, or about 400 boats, there were only 11. 11 out of 3800 +, over 135 hours of checking.

Now the SL crowd is crying about readings being slower if the boat is travelling at an angle to the radar. Well let's see, if the angle is 10 degrees the error would be about 1.5% if the angle is 30 degrees the error would be about 13%. The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them. Let's say for arguments sake that all the readings were taken at 30 degrees, that would skew the data to 13% faster. Even at that 97% of the boats would be travelling less than 45 mph. LEGISLATORS THERE IS NO SPEED PROBLEM ON THE LAKE.

I don't care what the argument is, if there was a problem like what has been portrayed by the SL group, it would have shown up in this study. There is no way, all these boats purported to be travelling at 90 mph would be able to see and slow down in time for a speed trap. Speed limit supporters, I didn't buy your spin before, and I absolutely don't buy it now.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

To your first question.... I really thought you were smart enough to figure it out, but I guess I need to explain it to you. Let me quote the MP report...

"The radar was generally effective with vessels traveling toward or away from the patrol boat; however, when the target vessel was approaching or leaving at an angle, the reading tended to be inaccurate and those numbers are not included in this sampling."

The reason those numbers are not included in the sampling is because of the reasons I stated in my post that you so nicely linked to this discussion. I will state it again... Radar works best when the boats are traveling in a straight line towards or away from the unit. ANY angular deviation results in an error in the readout. This is called the Law of Cosines. The greater the angle, the greater the error. The error is ALWAYS lower than the actual speed. The state will not meet the burden of proof required in court of law.

To your second question...

I was at the work session, I sat in the front row right behind Capt. Gallagher. There was no mention if the boats collecting the data were marked or unmarked. The public was not allowed to ask questions, and it wasn't a question that one of the committee members thought to ask. I would assume they were marked patrol boats. This study was not funded, and was done in conjuction with regularly scheduled MP patrols to save $$$. Not that it matters...

You are thinking that the results would have been markedly different if they had used unmarked patrol boats. I don't think that marked or unmarked would have made any difference whatsoever. Going fast isn't illegal, and with the exception of the two public test zones, the other 7 radar test zones were unknown to the boating public. To me and everyone else, it was just another MP boat on patrol.

If you are thinking an unmarked patrol boat would have yielded different results, then you prove the point I have been trying to hammer in for years... more MP patrol boats = less Capt. Boneheads!

You still haven't answered my question on funding HB-847! How do you propose we fund this debacle?

Woodsy

[fatlazyless]

HB847 attachs a boat speed violation to your car driving license. One violation and say goodbye to your good driver discount for three years, two violations and say hello to the high risk insurance pool for three years. It's way, way more expense than the 88 dollar violation, itself.

Lake George NY is a good example of what happens after a speed limit is introduced.........boaters get the message, quickly.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The moment the MPs found that their platform couldn't produce consistent or reliable data, they erred in not moving the test zones.

Next time, the MPs must clock from a stable platform or island to produce dependable readings in heavily trafficked areas. Under any conditions, the presence of a marked patrol boat affects sampling—even with no speeding laws to enforce. When "irregular water" is present, the average speed of your study group will decrease—three errors.

When this happens, discontinue monitoring—and move the site.

How would it make sense to clock from an island? Boats don't generally drive in a straight course towards an island! Furthermore, this was also a test of the enforceablility of a speed law. Once the law is put into place, how do you propose to stop the boat that you clocked from land?

Also, regarding irregular water. Please, do tell me, where can I find smooth water on a summer weekend at Winni?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

PWCs were included in the database?

The MPs could have been clocking the very same PWC ten times an hour! Just a handful of PWCs can skew the basis for "number of boats studied" during the day, and are completely missing from the MP database at night!

First of all, I doubt they clocked the same PWCs 10 times in one hour, I think the MPs are smart enough to recognize the same guy going in circles. Second of all, regardless of how many times you go by a certain point, you are an independent sample each time. If 10 boats go buy point X, and 5 of them are actually the same guy, then he does in fact make up 50% of the traffic, and the results should reflect that.

Also, the PWCs are missing at night? I hope so, they're not allowed at night!

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Poker Runs produce the highest average speeds on the lake. Why are they so clearly absent from "the sampling"? Was it a considered a "race"—and is somehow exempt from sampling? Whatever—to overlook them is still an error.

How do you know that these trials were not done on the day of a poker run? The trials were done pretty much every weekend after all.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Why were average speeds calculated to include boats going less than 10-MPH?

Slow boats are not a group known for collision risk and should have been excluded—an error.

...

10) Results were thrown out by the MPs when a cosine was needed...

You calculate the cosine.

If you can't calculate the cosine, you shut off the radar and select an alternate effective study area in order to permit such calculations.

You never throw out results in a study—an error.

Oh the irony. First you say you should throw out the slow speeds. Why, to skew the averages higher? The average is irrelevant anyways, the relevant number is the number of boats going faster than 45 anyways. The best part though is that you manage to say later in the same post that you should never throw out results!

Also, there is no way that you can calculate the cosine, that requires you know the angle between you and the direction of their travel, which is impossible to figure out on the fly.

EDIT: I should also note, you mention repeatedly reasons why another site should be selected. The boat shouldn't be marked, the water shouldn't be irregular, the platform should be stable, the boats shouldn't be traveling at an angle, etc. These are all things that have been mentioned before as to why a speed limit would not be enforceable. Its impossible to get ideal conditions on Winni, which means that all the issues you bring up would defeat their ability to enforce this law. If the boat is unmarked, how is he going to stop a speeding boat? If I see an unmarked boat chasing me down, I am not stopping.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

HB847 attachs a boat speed violation to your car driving license. One violation and say goodbye to your good driver discount for three years, two violations and say hello to the high risk insurance pool for three years. It's way, way more expense than the 88 dollar violation, itself.

Lake George NY is a good example of what happens after a speed limit is introduced.........boaters get the message, quickly.

Yes, if the law passes, people will get the message, but why should it cost 88 bucks and violiation points to safely go fast. Especially this time of year, where there are few boats, speed is not a problem. Don't put the cost of fear and revenge on safe boaters who like to go fast - even if there are only a few of them.

[Bear Islander]

There are a lot of foolish boaters on the lake. But very few that are stupid enough to go full speed directly toward a boat with "Marine Patrol" on the side in two foot letters.

And I imagine traveling directly toward the MP at 90mph would be considered reckless operation by the officers on board. Even if you did change course before 150'.

Speed data collected by marked boats is useless. Any other interpretation is idiotic. You people would agree except that you THINK it supports your argument.

Speed limits are enforced on dozens of NH lakes without speed traps, radar or radar trained officers. For the most part speed limits are self enforcing. Most people are law abiding. Yes, they will go a little over a speed limit, just like on the highways. However serious infractions are rare.

Is there an enforcement problem on the NH lakes that have speed limits now?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are a lot of foolish boaters on the lake. But very few that are stupid enough to go full speed directly toward a boat with "Marine Patrol" on the side in two foot letters.

And I imagine traveling directly toward the MP at 90mph would be considered reckless operation by the officers on board. Even if you did change course before 150'.

Speed data collected by marked boats is useless. Any other interpretation is idiotic. You people would agree except that you THINK it supports your argument.

Speed limits are enforced on dozens of NH lakes without speed traps, radar or radar trained officers. For the most part speed limits are self enforcing. Most people are law abiding. Yes, they will go a little over a speed limit, just like on the highways. However serious infractions are rare.

Is there an enforcement problem on the NH lakes that have speed limits now?

how are the speed limits enforced accurately if there is no control of radar factors such as on flat surface coming directly at the radar and the like that you speed limits supporters are calling for in order for something to be accurate? You cannot cry wolf on this study because of the way it was done and then say the same system has worked on the other lakes!

[B R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

HB847 attachs a boat speed violation to your car driving license. One violation and say goodbye to your good driver discount for three years, two violations and say hello to the high risk insurance pool for three years. It's way, way more expense than the 88 dollar violation, itself.

Lake George NY is a good example of what happens after a speed limit is introduced.........boaters get the message, quickly.

I heard that only NH residents would get points on their driver's license. I don't believe other states will put this ticket on their out-of-state driver licenses. My good driver points may not be gone with a speeding ticket on Lake Winnipesaukee. I could be wrong here. Does anyone have better knowledge on this?

I passed quite a few speed traps this year. I didn't notice them until I was well past them. They were very good at hiding. I seriously doubt every speeding boat saw these as speed traps and slowed down in time. It's a pretty weak argument. I'm sure it happened occasionally, but to say it happened in every case is, excuse me, idiocy.

Has anyone thought how easy it would be to beat these tickets in court? I've downloaded and read the Speed report. There's quite a bit of data in there to discredit the use of radar on the lakes. And it's coming from, what I believe the courts would agree on, a creditable source, the NH Marine Patrol.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by B R

...I heard that only NH residents would get points on their driver's license. I don't believe other states will put this ticket on their out-of-state driver licenses. My good driver points may not be gone with a speeding ticket on Lake Winnipesaukee. I could be wrong here. Does anyone have better knowledge on this?...

You are correct, the NH Legislature can only dictate what gets annotated on New Hampsire driving records, not on the records of other States. Other States are free to consider or reject the information if indeed that information is forwarded to them by New Hampshire officials.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are a lot of foolish boaters on the lake. But very few that are stupid enough to go full speed directly toward a boat with "Marine Patrol" on the side in two foot letters.

And I imagine traveling directly toward the MP at 90mph would be considered reckless operation by the officers on board. Even if you did change course before 150'.

[/b]

Why on earth would someone go directly toward any stationary boat at full throttle or 90 MPH? That sounds, as you pointed out, an awful lot like reckless operation to me. That's already against the law. If someone were guilty of reckless operation, why would they care about speed limits?

I think your unmarked vs. marked boat theory would make perfect sense if there was a speed limit, but there isn't. There's no incentive to slow down if there's no speed limit, unless it's necessary for other reasons, which are already covered by existing laws. Most folks who know me would argue I'm not an idiot.

[Bear Islander]

Dave

You are correct, nobody is going to go directly towards another boat at high speed. Yet Woodsy has explained to us that unless a boat is doing EXACTLY that then their recorded speed is thown out. It does not become part of the data.

Therefore one would expect almost all the data collected to be low speed. And guess what.... it was!

Which of course is exactly what was intended when the test was designed. And are we really supposed to believe the MP could not get their hands on even one unmarked boat? This study cost tens of thousands of man hour dollars but they couldn't find a skiff with a ten HP.

This entire project does not pass the laugh test! Tax dollars down the drain.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dave

You are correct, nobody is going to go directly towards another boat at high speed. Yet Woodsy has explained to us that unless a boat is doing EXACTLY that then their recorded speed is thown out. It does not become part of the data.

This entire project does not pass the laugh test! Tax dollars down the drain.

Let me get this straight. You think that 3,852 boats drove directly towards a highly visible Marine Patrol boat with 2 foot letters on it describing it as such and didn't get pulled over for reckless driving?

If you read the report, they didn't include that data because they couldn't conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" what speed the boat was traveling because they couldn't determine the angle of the target boat compared to their stationary boat/radar gun. Which is exactly why I believe these tickets, if they are ever handed out, will be easily overturned in court.

Talk about a waste of tax dollars.

[Bear Islander]

3,852 boats may have traveled at low speed directly toward the MP for long enough to get a radar reading.

But we all seem to agree nobody would do that at high speed. And that is what the data shows.

I really don't care how many tickets are handed out or if they stand up in court. A speed limit will set a standard. Its sends a message even if not tightly enforced. "NO LIMITS" also sends a message, but it is the wrong one!

[chmeeee]

I think we're confusing the issue here. First of all, we don't know what kind of range we're talking about when they took the readings. Was it 200 feet or 1500 feet? If its 1500 feet, then its perfectly reasonable to consider that boats may have been heading straight towards MP with time to veer as they get closer. Additionally, from that range is more likely that they wouldn't notice that the boat ahead is MP. Given that the average speed was ~29 mph on weekends, I sincerely doubt that they were measuring boats headed straight towards them at close range. Furthermore, 29 mph sounds just about exactly right to me. When I cruise out there, I tend to find that once I get into the mid-30s, I am passing more boats then are passing me.

Also, when they say head on, there must be a range of headings that are considered close enough. 7 degrees off from directly head on at range of 1500 feet would allow a boat to pass the marine patrol boat 184 feet to the side. That would be far enough for them to maintain speed and safe passage while still giving a reading within 1% of correct (cosine(7)=.99).

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

3,852 boats may have traveled at low speed directly toward the MP for long enough to get a radar reading.

But we all seem to agree nobody would do that at high speed. And that is what the data shows.

I really don't care how many tickets are handed out or if they stand up in court. A speed limit will set a standard. Its sends a message even if not tightly enforced. "NO LIMITS" also sends a message, but it is the wrong one!

If I am out on the lake and speeding (if I could), having full knowledge of this test and a copy of the report and the data to support it, A speed limit would not stop me from going fast because the ticket would be a useless piece of paper that would mean nothing to me because the ticket would not hurt me financially or driving record wise because the ticket does not even hold its own weight. I would gladly put this to the test in a court of law. I might get stopped for what someone else might feel is reckless boating, but who is the judge of that just because you are going fast does not mean you are reckless, although some here in the forum feel otherwise. Probably the same people that do 45 in a posted 65 speed limit area on the road or those that have never gone over the speed limit their whole lives, yeah right

[Dave R]

chmeeee, Don't start clouding the debate with facts!

[Skip]

By a vote of 7 to 6 yesterday afternoon, HB 847 made it out of committee and is now on to the House for action. Several ammendments were made by the committee before it was sent on. The full story can be read on-line here at the CITIZEN.

[codeman671]

Skip, thanks for the link. I find John Irwin's quote to be interesting.

Taken from the Citizen article:

"It's going to affect everybody. I just think it will turn people away from Winnipesaukee," said John Irwin, owner and operator of Irwin Marine.

Irwin explained that speedboats make up a very small percentage of his overall business, a trend he believes is industrywide in New Hampshire, estimating that boats sold for speed make up less than one percent of overall sales.

However, because of the heated debate over this issue Irwin said he was somewhat leery about how all of this might impact tourism and recreational boating.

This is coming from a dealer who does no real business in the performance boat industry. They carry Sea Doo and Skeeter bass boats, neither of which are the main "culprits". He has no real stake in this argument as it will not hinder his sales of a specific type of boat. Bass fishermen will still buy their boats regardless of a speed limit as they serve a purpose. we have already had discussions that not too many PWC even break 50mph so it will not curb their sales.

What it will do is change the local industry/economy. What is your pitch to be to bring people back? "Come to Winnipesaukee, the safest place on water thanks to Bear Island". Sounds catchy to me. No, actually it doesn't. Drive away the tourists and the businesses go away. What happens to your taxes? Before you know it FLL will be paying $20k a year for his slice of heaven.

I find it extremely comical that the SL crew fought hard to prove radar was effective and not that results come back to show conflicting data to their cause the data was instantly skewed. Face it, the law is not needed! Speed is not an issue on other lakes because of their sheer size. How many 30+ footers do you typically see on Ossippee? On Squam? Is there really enough space (or depth for that matter) to venture above 40mph on these bodies of water?

Bear Islander, how is this going to be enforced if your claims that the radar was inneffective unless under perfect conditions/angles? And how do you know that some of this data was not collected in unmarked boats? I have heard of unmarked MP PWC and jet boats on patrol, what makes you think that no data was gathered from unmarked boats? And the othe 7 test zones, don't you think that someone would notice marked MP boats in other areas running radar traps? I heard of no such report and out of 3800+ boats tested I think that someone would have squawked if they saw someone running the gun in a different spot.

Lets just ban all power boats and get it over with. Maybe nekkid kayaking should be allowed. Maybe sailboats only. I am beginning to care less and less. If it passes though what is next?

[Cal]

Lets see , FLL said

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Let's see, there are many lakes in the state that already have speed limits, except for Lake Winnipesaukee, which gets clogged up with hundreds of various different types, sizes, and styles of boats and boater abilities, and it does not have any speed limit. Is this a safe situation?

Yet the Citizen reports...

Originally Posted by the "Citizen"

Currently Squam Lake is the only other in the state that has speed limit restrictions on it.

I think somebodys wrong. Waddaya say FLL

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Cal

...I think somebodys wrong. Waddaya say FLL...

In this case FLL is correct and the Citizen has it wrong. There are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that have both speed limits and/or horsepower limits....or completely ban motorized vessels.

For those of you interested, you can go to this LINK and focus your attention on RSAs 270:76 through 270:132.

Skip

[Cal]

Oooooooooooooooooookay Skip. Let the Citizen stand corrected

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Cal

Oooooooooooooooooookay Skip. Let the Citizen stand corrected

No problem Cal...I don't often get an opportunity to say that FLL has it right, so I jumped at the opportunity!

[fatlazyless]

As I recall, today's Laconia Daily Sun article said the Transport Committee's vote yesterday was seven voting yes (5 Dems-2 Repubs), six voting no (6 Repubs), & six no-shows (no info on party).

Interesting that it was a little bit bipartisan? What's up with the six no-shows? That's a lot of no-shows. Were they staying away to avoid what has been called the most contentious bill of the two-year session?

State Rep Carol Estes(D), Plymouth, who voted yes, said that she was in a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee going 45mph this summer, and was surprised by how many larger boats passed them.

State Rep Steve Nedeau(R), Meredith, who I believe is a retired police officer also voted yes.

State Rep Mike Whalley(R), minority leader, Alton, who was quoted in the Citizen article is one of the owner's of three-store HK Motorsports which sells jetskis and jet boats, so it's no surprise he was totally negative on HB847.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Skip

No problem Cal...I don't often get an opportunity to say that FLL has it right, so I jumped at the opportunity!

That's for sure. Thanks Skip!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

State Rep Mike Whalley(R), minority leader, Alton, who was quoted in the Citizen article is one of the owner's of three-store HK Motorsports which sells jetskis and jet boats, so it's no surprise he was totally negative on HB847.

Or, he's one of the few well enough informed to realize the bill is a complete farce.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by BR

"I don't believe other states will put this ticket on their out-of-state driver licenses..."

http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/message.php?i=778076277

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Why on earth would someone go directly toward any stationary boat at full throttle...?"

You're right—how did the MPs get an over-60-MPH figure more than once!?!?

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...I think your unmarked vs. marked boat theory would make perfect sense if there was a speed limit, but there isn't..."

Even the buoy tender is marked: the unmarked boats were all reported to be small—a very poor platform for radar.

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...There's no incentive to slow down if there's no speed limit..."

You'd think so, but...

"The Marine Patrol came by for 1/2 an hour and those boats didn't buzz me at that point but as soon as the MP left it was back to the way the picture is."

Originally Posted by ITD

"...3800+ boats is a huge sample..."

MPs were counting in both directions: counting boats twice doesn't make it so "huge".

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Even at that 97% of the boats would be travelling less than 45 mph. LEGISLATORS THERE IS NO SPEED PROBLEM ON THE LAKE..."

With 97% of the boats on the lake, there's no problem.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Speed limit supporters, I didn't buy your spin before, and I absolutely don't buy it now..."

There's no headline that would change your mind?

Originally Posted by Chmeee

"...If I see an unmarked boat chasing me down, I am not stopping..."

Not even for the siren and blue-light thingy?

Originally Posted by Chmeee

"...The average is irrelevant anyways..."

Agreed...But "the spin" of an average is in print:

"The survey showed that the average daytime speed was 22.72 mph with a speed of 20.42 mph at night, according to Gallagher..."
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...019/-1/CITIZEN

Originally Posted by Dave R

...I cannot imagine any Senator voting for a speed limit after reading the that study, they'd look like an idiot..."

Most Senators would recognize a "blind study".

This isn't one.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As I recall, today's Laconia Daily Sun article said the Transport Committee's vote yesterday was seven voting yes (5 Dems-2 Repubs), six voting no (6 Repubs), & six no-shows (no info on party).Interesting that it was a little bit bipartisan?.

No surprize there.The good old New Hampshire Yankee is still republican.Interesting though that the conservative Republican would not support speed limits but Liberal Dems would.It seems going fast would be liberal and slowing people down would be conservative.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

State Rep Mike Whalley(R), minority leader, Alton, who was quoted in the Citizen article is one of the owner's of three-store HK Motorsports which sells jetskis and jet boats, so it's no surprise he was totally negative on HB847.

Ya,he must have an evil motivation.I would say he is much more informed on this issue than most of the Reps,and probably has many more boating hours under his belt.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/message.php?i=778076277

This brings up an interesting point.

First off, this only says the states share data. I understand and acknowledge getting a ticket in NH shows up on my Mass license.

But what happens if Mass doesn't believe a boat speeding ticket should show up on my Mass license? And if NH is putting these tickets on their driving point system, would Mass throw out ALL tickets received in NH if there isn't a simple way to separate boating tickets and car tickets?