Speed Limit Compromise Poll

OCDACTIVE · 08-19-2009, 04:26 PM

Trying to get a feel for a number on what people would actually like.

NoRegrets · 08-20-2009, 06:31 AM

I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above". I think the two year cycle should run its course and then be true to the original process.....

The intent of the SL law is being compromised already so proposing a compromise on a compromised situation will never end with the group that is controlling all the cards. IMHO

OCDACTIVE · 08-20-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above". I think the two year cycle should run its course and then be true to the original process.....

The intent of the SL law is being compromised already so proposing a compromise on a compromised situation will never end with the group that is controlling all the cards. IMHO

I agree with you that they should finish what they started the 2 year trial period. But if they are going to start pushing for it to be made permanent now then we need to find a compromise. The all or nothing apparently will not work on either side.

SIKSUKR · 08-20-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above".

That would the first choice in the poll.

OCDACTIVE · 08-20-2009, 10:23 AM

So looking at the numbers so far, the vast majority are for limits but in a less conservative manner. I thought that there would have been more supporters.. Maybe that will increase.

It is funny though looking at it you have almost and equal amount on either end of the spectrum 9 for none at all and 10 for current law, but the majority are looking for some type of compromise.

Very interesting.

Lets see how it progresses.

sa meredith · 08-20-2009, 10:27 AM

I chose option 3, which I think is he case now anyway.
Current law, with broads unlimited. Does anyone think the current law would be enforced, on a light traffic day, in the broads?

NoRegrets · 08-20-2009, 10:54 AM

The law may look the other way for awhile but you would be surprised how many concerned citizens (ninnies) that interpret laws, personalize them, and will call at the most innocent infraction. I am sure the marine patrol is inundated with reported sightings of terrorist speeders!!!! There may even citizen groups created. They will be assigned to partrol on shifts. Amazing that we are talking about recreation in America....

Island-Ho · 08-20-2009, 11:33 AM

I'd support a modified limit of something like 50 days, 30 nights. 25mph is just too slow to get many hulls up on plane. Of course if decent muffler devices were added to all the GFBL then I would support option 1. How's that for a compromise?

codeman671 · 08-20-2009, 12:02 PM

Although I am an opponent of the current law, some of the compromises make perfect sense. I could care less about how fast people go in the broads. What I don't like are the boats that scream between the islands at 80mph on busy days... Even still I see a few fast boats every weekend cutting the corner at the end of Mark and flying through one of the busiest watersports areas on the lake between campers, tubers, skiers, and boarders.

I am fine with no limits as long as patrols are stepped up to prevent safety issues in certain hot spots. I am fine with 65/30, fine with the current law with unlimited in the broads, or similar variations. Something needed to be done, I just don't completely agree with the outcome thus far.

As far as night time, 25-30 is plenty fast. I have certainly made my high speeds broads runs back at night, and sometimes in inclement weather but dont mind dialing it back.

For the record I went current law with broads unlimited.

OCDACTIVE · 08-20-2009, 01:25 PM

anyone want to guess my response?

zantheman · 08-20-2009, 01:43 PM

How about a speed limit only on Sat/Sun and Holidays? That's the way it is on our lake during the day. (nights here are another issue) During the weekdays we are allowed to crank it up as much as we want. I would think (and have experience there) that Winnipesaukee does not get so much weekday traffic that it is dangerous without one.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

OCDACTIVE · 08-21-2009, 07:29 AM

Again I am very intrigued with the results... 61% of the responses show that some type of compromise is preferred...

If you consider who is on this site, in my opinion people who are die hard winnipesaukee fans, this gives you a good indication of those who use the lake regularly really want.

It is a much better poll then that taken via phone to "residents" who may not have ever been to the lake.

I think a lot can be said by this.

Will be interesting to see how it continues.

Slickcraft · 08-21-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Again I am very intrigued with the results... 61% of the responses show that some type of compromise is preferred...

If you consider who is on this site, in my opinion people who are die hard winnipesaukee fans, this gives you a good indication of those who use the lake regularly really want.

While the poll is an interesting exercise, you can't make any valid general area wide conclusions from it. Those voting are those that frequent the often contentious speed limits sub-forum, not really a statistically unbiased sample.

OCDACTIVE · 08-21-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

While the poll is an interesting exercise, you can't make any valid general area wide conclusions from it. Those voting are those that frequent the often contentious speed limits sub-forum, not really a statistically unbiased sample.

While I will agree to a point, I will say I personally feel that those voting here have a much better understanding then the general public who may or may not boat at Winni or have ever visted there.

Although you may say that these sub-forums are biased I see plenty of posts in support of the limits so it can go either way.

I think this poll works because it is those who know the area and are directly effected by their impact.

sunset on the dock · 08-21-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

While I will agree to a point, I will say I personally feel that those voting here have a much better understanding then the general public who may or may not boat at Winni or have ever visted there.

Although you may say that these sub-forums are biased I see plenty of posts in support of the limits so it can go either way.

I think this poll works because it is those who know the area and are directly effected by their impact.

You're missing a huge sampling of people who have a stake in the lake and are indeed its owners/stewards...whether they be swimmers, people who don't own lakefront but hear the noise, older people who may not be as computer literate as you, people who kayak, etc., etc.

OCDACTIVE · 08-21-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

You're missing a huge sampling of people who have a stake in the lake and are indeed its owners/stewards...whether they be swimmers, people who don't own lakefront but hear the noise, older people who may not be as computer literate as you, people who kayak, etc., etc.

I disagree.. one thing I have found in meeting people from Winni.com is that there is a wide range of people who visit this site. You can see that simply from the diverse range of opinions and amount of views the speed limit sub-forum has accumulated. There is no way to tell who is voting - boaters, kayakers, swimmers, or visitors.

I am simply saying that I like this poll because it is not written to sway anyone's vote and it is a sample of people who most likely frequent the lake more so then a random calling of NH residents.

I personally feel that those who are at the lake, know the waters, boat on the lake (to whatever capacity) should have more say then someone that has never visited.

It is very difficult to explain to someone how big the lake is until you have been there. If a quiestion is posed to someone who has never seen the lake if speed limits should be enacted they normally will have nothing to compare it to other then driving a car. As we all know there is quite a difference there.

sunset on the dock · 08-21-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I disagree.. one thing I have found in meeting people from Winni.com is that there is a wide range of people who visit this site. You can see that simply from the diverse range of opinions and amount of views the speed limit sub-forum has accumulated. There is no way to tell who is voting - boaters, kayakers, swimmers, or visitors.

I am simply saying that I like this poll because it is not written to sway anyone's vote and it is a sample of people who most likely frequent the lake more so then a random calling of NH residents.

I personally feel that those who are at the lake, know the waters, boat on the lake (to whatever capacity) should have more say then someone that has never visited.

It is very difficult to explain to someone how big the lake is until you have been there. If a quiestion is posed to someone who has never seen the lake if speed limits should be enacted they normally will have nothing to compare it to other then driving a car. As we all know there is quite a difference there.

Maybe I'm missing something but these numbers don't seem to mesh with what I'm seeing in this neighborhood. Our road association, consisting of many modest homes, many of which need to be rented out just to pay the taxes, voted unamimously to send a portion of our road dues to Winnfabs. My elderly parents (not computer literate) would also not be represented here. I suppose one could take a poll of Americans asking what they felt America's role in world affairs should be and the results would vary astonishingly depending on whether you polled at a Baptist church in Georgia vs. a mosque in New York City. Polls taken by asking people to respond are notoriously inaccurate compared to when the pollster goes directly to those being polled. For example, if you went to everyone who has posted on any forum on Winnipesaukee.com (general category, pets, real estate, restaurants, weather etc.)over the last 6 months and posted your question to them, then the poll would have some statistical validity.

OCDACTIVE · 08-21-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Maybe I'm missing something but these numbers don't seem to mesh with what I'm seeing in this neighborhood. Our road association, consisting of many modest homes, many of which need to be rented out just to pay the taxes, voted unamimously to send a portion of our road dues to Winnfabs. My elderly parents (not computer literate) would also not be represented here. I suppose one could take a poll of Americans asking what they felt America's role in world affairs should be and the results would vary astonishingly depending on whether you polled at a Baptist church in Georgia vs. a mosque in New York City. Polls taken by asking people to respond are notoriously inaccurate compared to when the pollster goes directly to those being polled. For example, if you went to everyone who has posted on any forum on Winnipesaukee.com (general category, pets, real estate, restaurants, weather etc.)over the last 6 months and posted your question to them, then the poll would have some statistical validity.

I understand your point, however are you saying that the majority of people who visit winni.com are GFBL enthusiasts? Because when I read all of these posts there are hardcore people on both sides (being the unlimited / current law votes) but the majority appears wants some restrictions but some type of compromise...

Also would you agree with me that we should poll those who are most effected by the law rather then people who never have been to the lake and / or have no boating knowledge of the lake?

In a previous post in another thread I pointed out almost the exact same point you made which was it all depends on the people you speak to. Most people associate with others like themselves. If you ask all my neighbors I'd say 90% + are not in favor of limits.... As you said it all depends on where you are polling.

I think Winni.com does have a wide array of people all of which Love the lake, otherwise they wouldn't be on or part of this website. From the other polls the majority only 20% own a go fast boat / jetski effected by the limits. However looking at these numbers I feel it clearly shows that people do want some type of law just not all or nothing. Whether I agree with that or not is my personal beliefs but from all these discussions it looks like we can work something out to please "most" everyone.

Wouldn't you say?

BroadHopper · 08-21-2009, 03:30 PM

Is consist of modest homes, old cottages and a McMansion. We all agree we need some kind of limits but disagree verbally about the 25 at night. We are already suffering from erosion due to the high water as well as boat wakes. We love to compromise on the 25 at night. It should either be above cruiser planing speed or no wake at all.
We have sent a petition signed by over 50 lake shore owners to Rep. Pilliod last year. The only response we got from him was, 'We have to start somewhere'. That is not a compromise. Pure bully tactic.

sunset on the dock · 08-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Also would you agree with me that we should poll those who are most effected by the law rather then people who never have been to the lake and / or have no boating knowledge of the lake?

The lake belongs to everyone in NH, from those who may dunk their kids in the lake at a public beach once a year to my neighbor across the street who doesn't own lake frontage but complains about the noise. It belongs to storeowners in Center Harbor and to someone who wants to curl up in a hammock next to the lake and peacefully read a book. These are all NH voters and all their votes mean the same to our elected officials in Concord.
My point is that anyone, not just boaters, who interacts with the lake has a say. Our legislators know this and are intelligent enough to interpret a poll taken on a boating forum as just such.

tis · 08-21-2009, 04:14 PM

I agree with you Ocdactive, that if someone never uses the lake, doesn't live near the lake, they just can't havethe same interest. For instance,I certainly do not care what people in Salem do. I never go there. But to those who live there I am sure there are many issues that are very important to them.

OCDACTIVE · 08-21-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

The lake belongs to everyone in NH, from those who may dunk their kids in the lake at a public beach once a year to my neighbor across the street who doesn't own lake frontage but complains about the noise. It belongs to storeowners in Center Harbor and to someone who wants to curl up in a hammock next to the lake and peacefully read a book. These are all NH voters and all their votes mean the same to our elected officials in Concord.
My point is that anyone, not just boaters, who interacts with the lake has a say. Our legislators know this and are intelligent enough to interpret a poll taken on a boating forum as just such.

I see your point but I disagree somewhat on the basis that this is not a boating website. Although we are in the Boating forum as you pointed out many people are effected by speed limits and anyone on the website are welcome to participate in this poll. I didn't say "boating members only".

So again I think this poll is more relevant because it is people who love the lake and have choosen to come onto winni.com to talk more about the place they know and love.

hazelnut · 08-21-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I see your point but I disagree somewhat on the basis that this is not a boating website. Although we are in the Boating forum as you pointed out many people are effected by speed limits and anyone on the website are welcome to participate in this poll. I didn't say "boating members only".

So again I think this poll is more relevant because it is people who love the lake and have choosen to come onto winni.com to talk more about the place they know and love.

EXCELLENT POINT OCD!!!!!! This could not be more relevant. Winnipesaukee.com is not nor has ever been a "boating forum." Where is this written? Anyone who comes to this website can clearly see all posts from every subthread and is welcome to vote. Where does it say that this poll is exclusive to boater? Why should people in North Conway or Nashua or Concord or Merrimack or Hooksett or wherever have say on what goes on at a lake they never visit??????

IMO people who visit www.winnipesaukee.com represent the views and opinions that I support with regard to how the lake should be governed. If this poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a SL I would pack up shop and never comment again and accept the law as is. However SL supporters will continuously denounce this forum as a misrepresentation of the "REAL" opinions of the users of the lake. What a complete JOKE! Please this is a plea to all members of this forum VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. I along with all those who support positions other than the current law welcome any and all viewpoints. Yes we debate them, sometimes strongly. I must have missed the page that Don put up that states "BOATERS ONLY" "SPEED LIMIT SUPPORTERS NEED NOT APPLY." What a crock.

Bear Islander · 08-21-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... If this poll were overwhelmingly in favor of a SL I would pack up shop and never comment again and accept the law as is....

Last time I looked the poll is at 19% for "no limits". That means over 80% are in favor of some kind of a speed limit. I'll say that again so it can sink in. 80% are in favor of a speed limit.

Just what is your definition of "overwhelming"? Because 80% does it for me.

Kracken · 08-24-2009, 03:40 PM

There is a certain group of people who keep saying the “Lake belongs to all of us.”

Yet, they are the same group that wants to take the lake away from another certain group.

Hmmm

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Just like the rest of the real world. The whole lake is NOT for everybody at all times. If you go out on the broads in a 16ft bowrider on the weekend you are a moron. It’s also not the appropriate place for a canoe, rowboat, or swimmer. There are days when it is not appropriate for a 25 foot bowrider to be on the broads. Slowing down boats will not make this lake any safer. The lake was a dangerous place 40 years ago and it’s a dangerous place today. This argument made by the supporters truly has nothing to do with speed or safety. It’s making sure everybody is equal.

If the proponents where so sure they were right, why are they pushing the bill to become permanent before any studies can be done? The reason is they don’t want the facts to get in the way. Right now, the statistics show the law is either not enforceable or there was never a problem with speed.

Life is not fair. Sometimes the Lake isn’t either.

malibu · 08-20-2009, 01:34 PM

Seeing how the current SL has done nothing to make the lake safer on weekends this truly is a compromise. If the original intent was to make the lake safer for everyone, then spend the money more wisely on increased MP and enforce the laws we already have. Captain boneheads will not change if they are never pulled over!!! Speed was never the issue and that still remains the case.

Malibu

tis · 08-21-2009, 05:34 PM

You know, BI is right, most people are voting for compromise. Can I change my vote? For some reason I was thinking what I could best live with for a compromise and therefore didn't vote for unlimited. Unlimited would be my first choice. I could live with a limit at night because I do think the lake is dangerous at night.

View Poll Results: What do you feel the ideal Speed Limit Compromise would be?
Unlimited (as in the past)	78	29.66%
Current Law (25 night, 45 day)	46	17.49%
Current Law - Broads Unlimited	52	19.77%
Compromised MPH example 65 Day, 30 night	69	26.24%
Distance rule. Example: unlimited over 300ft, 500, 1000 etc.	18	6.84%
Voters: 263. You may not vote on this poll

08-19-2009, 04:26 PM	#1
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	Speed Limit Compromise Poll Trying to get a feel for a number on what people would actually like. __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-20-2009, 10:23 AM	#5
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	So looking at the numbers so far, the vast majority are for limits but in a less conservative manner. I thought that there would have been more supporters.. Maybe that will increase. It is funny though looking at it you have almost and equal amount on either end of the spectrum 9 for none at all and 10 for current law, but the majority are looking for some type of compromise. Very interesting. Lets see how it progresses. __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-20-2009, 10:27 AM	#6
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	option 3 I chose option 3, which I think is he case now anyway. Current law, with broads unlimited. Does anyone think the current law would be enforced, on a light traffic day, in the broads?

08-20-2009, 11:33 AM	#8
Island-Ho Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 176 Thanks: 19 Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts	Option 4 I'd support a modified limit of something like 50 days, 30 nights. 25mph is just too slow to get many hulls up on plane. Of course if decent muffler devices were added to all the GFBL then I would support option 1. How's that for a compromise?

08-20-2009, 06:31 AM	#2
NoRegrets Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hudson - NH Posts: 408 Thanks: 233 Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts	I know that this is a compromise thread but maybe one of the choices should have been "none of the above". I think the two year cycle should run its course and then be true to the original process..... The intent of the SL law is being compromised already so proposing a compromise on a compromised situation will never end with the group that is controlling all the cards. IMHO

08-20-2009, 10:54 AM	#7
NoRegrets Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hudson - NH Posts: 408 Thanks: 233 Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts	The law may look the other way for awhile but you would be surprised how many concerned citizens (ninnies) that interpret laws, personalize them, and will call at the most innocent infraction. I am sure the marine patrol is inundated with reported sightings of terrorist speeders!!!! There may even citizen groups created. They will be assigned to partrol on shifts. Amazing that we are talking about recreation in America....

08-20-2009, 12:02 PM	#9
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,360 Thanks: 210 Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts	Although I am an opponent of the current law, some of the compromises make perfect sense. I could care less about how fast people go in the broads. What I don't like are the boats that scream between the islands at 80mph on busy days... Even still I see a few fast boats every weekend cutting the corner at the end of Mark and flying through one of the busiest watersports areas on the lake between campers, tubers, skiers, and boarders. I am fine with no limits as long as patrols are stepped up to prevent safety issues in certain hot spots. I am fine with 65/30, fine with the current law with unlimited in the broads, or similar variations. Something needed to be done, I just don't completely agree with the outcome thus far. As far as night time, 25-30 is plenty fast. I have certainly made my high speeds broads runs back at night, and sometimes in inclement weather but dont mind dialing it back. For the record I went current law with broads unlimited.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-20-2009), robmac (08-21-2009), VtSteve (08-20-2009)

08-20-2009, 01:25 PM	#10
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	anyone want to guess my response? __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-20-2009, 01:43 PM	#11
zantheman Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	How about a speed limit only on Sat/Sun and Holidays? That's the way it is on our lake during the day. (nights here are another issue) During the weekdays we are allowed to crank it up as much as we want. I would think (and have experience there) that Winnipesaukee does not get so much weekday traffic that it is dangerous without one. Alex Lake Hopatcong, NJ

08-21-2009, 07:29 AM	#12
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	Again I am very intrigued with the results... 61% of the responses show that some type of compromise is preferred... If you consider who is on this site, in my opinion people who are die hard winnipesaukee fans, this gives you a good indication of those who use the lake regularly really want. It is a much better poll then that taken via phone to "residents" who may not have ever been to the lake. I think a lot can be said by this. Will be interesting to see how it continues. __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-21-2009, 03:30 PM	#19
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,512 Thanks: 3,118 Thanked 1,090 Times in 784 Posts	My road association Is consist of modest homes, old cottages and a McMansion. We all agree we need some kind of limits but disagree verbally about the 25 at night. We are already suffering from erosion due to the high water as well as boat wakes. We love to compromise on the 25 at night. It should either be above cruiser planing speed or no wake at all. We have sent a petition signed by over 50 lake shore owners to Rep. Pilliod last year. The only response we got from him was, 'We have to start somewhere'. That is not a compromise. Pure bully tactic. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

08-21-2009, 04:14 PM	#21
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	I agree with you Ocdactive, that if someone never uses the lake, doesn't live near the lake, they just can't havethe same interest. For instance,I certainly do not care what people in Salem do. I never go there. But to those who live there I am sure there are many issues that are very important to them.

08-24-2009, 03:40 PM	#25
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	I am sick of this nonsense. There is a certain group of people who keep saying the “Lake belongs to all of us.” Yet, they are the same group that wants to take the lake away from another certain group. Hmmm Do you see the hypocrisy? Just like the rest of the real world. The whole lake is NOT for everybody at all times. If you go out on the broads in a 16ft bowrider on the weekend you are a moron. It’s also not the appropriate place for a canoe, rowboat, or swimmer. There are days when it is not appropriate for a 25 foot bowrider to be on the broads. Slowing down boats will not make this lake any safer. The lake was a dangerous place 40 years ago and it’s a dangerous place today. This argument made by the supporters truly has nothing to do with speed or safety. It’s making sure everybody is equal. If the proponents where so sure they were right, why are they pushing the bill to become permanent before any studies can be done? The reason is they don’t want the facts to get in the way. Right now, the statistics show the law is either not enforceable or there was never a problem with speed. Life is not fair. Sometimes the Lake isn’t either.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
NoRegrets (08-25-2009)

08-20-2009, 01:34 PM	#26
malibu Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 7 Thanks: 21 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Seeing how the current SL has done nothing to make the lake safer on weekends this truly is a compromise. If the original intent was to make the lake safer for everyone, then spend the money more wisely on increased MP and enforce the laws we already have. Captain boneheads will not change if they are never pulled over!!! Speed was never the issue and that still remains the case. Malibu

The Following User Says Thank You to malibu For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (08-20-2009)

08-21-2009, 05:34 PM	#27
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	You know, BI is right, most people are voting for compromise. Can I change my vote? For some reason I was thinking what I could best live with for a compromise and therefore didn't vote for unlimited. Unlimited would be my first choice. I could live with a limit at night because I do think the lake is dangerous at night.