Speed Limit Passes House

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

270:1 Declaration of Policy. . . . provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species. . . .
We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

RSA 270:1 can and has been used to show the need for a NH lake speed limit. How is allowing high speed powerboats to travel at over 15 times faster tha the maximum speed of other boats on the same lake "safe and mutual enjoyment"? (And I could have a field day with the environment, water quality, and endangered species part, but I won't even go there.)

I know plenty of people who won't kayak on Winni because of the high speeds. It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time (and this is not "bending the truth"). Slower speeds are safer, because slower speeds give a person more time to react. That's a fact.

Most people that I know who are in favor of a lake speed limit are for it because they feel that the lake has become unsafe for smaller, slower boats. They are not out to ban any group, just slow people down. No class of powerboat is being forced off the lake by a speed limit - they will just have to slow down.

HB847 is all about sharing the lake. It's called a compromise. How is traveling at unlimited speeds a compromise? The high speeds of some powerboats are virtually forcing other boaters off the lake - which I see as a selfish act - these high speed powerboaters are not sharing the lake - they are hogging it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

Let me have an AMEN , BROTHA, how true , how true.

[Bear Islander]

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.

It's not a "secret agenda" Bear, you come right out and say it, you're one of the few with the guts to do it. Nobody said it was a "secret agenda", just the real agenda, the safety issue is BS, no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.

[Bear Islander]

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

. . . the safety issue is BS, no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.

I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.

You claim the speed limit isn't a safety issue, and your "proof" is that any boater who has stated that they have experienced a dangerous encounter with a high-speed boat on Winni must be "bending the truth" - because of some group conspiracy. The only boating group that I'm a member of is the Intercollegiate Sailing Association (which I have to be registered with to compete as an NCAA athlete). I'm pretty sure that neither the ICSA nor the NCAA are part of an anti-powerboat conspiracy.

I was at the hearing last March where many people told of dangerous speed-related encounters. One of our current Senators told me that her husband experienced a speed-related close encounter while kayaking. So I'm not the only one who has experienced these dangerous encounters.

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

No. I barely knew the man.

And that accident is not a good example of the accidents I would like to prevent. Last summers accident on Long Lake is much more to the point.

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.

If you want to go back and read my posts you will find my first choice was always a HP limit. And I am not so much concerned with the way the lake is now. Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

So, let's support a new, feel-good law based upon your opinion of what you speculate may happen in the future 5-10 years from now? I guess I get it now. It,s worse than I thought.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.

Evenstar, most boaters have had their 150 zone violated by Captain B, that is not in dispute. Do you think your close encounter was going over 45. Anything over 30 can seem "fast" when you are almost standing still, and "fast" is the term most are complaining about, not "over 45". One point of view you might consider is that those driving over 45 are likely to be more alert because of their speed, and more likely to see you in plenty of time. Those going a relaxing 30 are probably the ones that don't see you until its almost too late.

Your point about giving the MP an excuse to stop the faster crowd for BWI brings up the non-existant safety issue again. Historically, boats going over 45 don't cause more accidents than slower boats and don't deserve to be checked for BWI any more than a kayak does.

Even if the incident that scared you was a boat doing 46+, I honestly believe that very few Captain B incidents happen above the proposed limit. Restricting hundreds of boaters in using their boat as designed because of the fast but still under 45 Captain Bs is unfair and disruptive to solving the real safety issue you faced, failure to give proper separation.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.

Evenstar, don't you think the statements "almost got run over" and "had close calls" have some similarity in your posts? I do in your case...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes (including Winni), so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

2.) Personally having powerboats come well within my 150 foot zone, because they don't see me in time and are traveling too fast to stay further away

Originally Posted by Evenstar

what I posted was that I have had close calls, and that speeding boats have come way too close for comfort. In defining “close call”, when I stated that a boat was less than a second from hitting me

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I never said that every close call that I’ve had with high-speed powerboats was on Winni – many have been on other large NH lakes, which is why I’m upset that the bill has been so watered down that it currently only applies to Wini. But I have had close calls on Winni, and the boats were going way faster than 30MPH, and they came way closer than 150 feet

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort

You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other. "Close calls" to what then???

I only had to go back two weeks for this, I am sure if I wasted another 10 minutes to look further I would probably find plenty more.

My point, other than to poke a bit of fun at your expense? I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.

25mph vs 28mph? Come on Bear Islander...I certainly agree that 28mph is higher than 25mph but either way HB847 would have no effect here. No MP in their right mind is going to make a stop for an estimated 3mph over. We all know what was involved in that incident. Taking booze out of the equation though, do you have any deaths on Winnipesaukee to discuss that are truly attributed to speed only and not alcohol related in the last 5-10 years?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

.....................Look, we're not all lying.......................

I rest my case...........

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!

From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:

"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat". "The boats primary purpose was to hunt animals on inland lakes, rivers and the sea. In many places where the native kayakers lived they had to turn to the water for food because the land was not fertile enough to support their population. It was also used for transportation across open water and rivers. Most but not all kayaks are considered seaworthy."

My 16 foot sea kayak is not a flexible plastic kayak, but is made out of a rigid composite material (similar to fiberglass) and is not made to bounce off rocks in shallow waterways, but is designed for traveling long distances on large open bodies of water. It is make for large waves and even has a rudder, and a compass.

Originally Posted by codeman671

You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other.

You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over." Plus you were responding to my previous post where all I said was that "powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast."

I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.

So, now you have to have some magical minimum amout of time on Winni to be able to perceive when you're in danger? I could easily argue that only NH residents have the right to debate a NH speed limit. Just a single occurance of a highspeed boat violating my 150 foot zone on Winni was enough for me to know that speed is an issue (and I've more than one occurance).

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

Again, how is a 45 mph speed limit "banning a few boaters"? It is banning what many feel is an unsafe practice. Again, whenever someone like me recounts a personal experience that shows why we see speed as a safety issue, you and others here try to discredit them or accuse them of being part of some non-existant conspiracy.

I have talked with several MP officers (four to be exact) - all were in favor of a speed limit law. Two of the officers said that they felt it would help them to spot someone BWI, since they often speed.

I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't accuse me of having any hidden agenda.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No. I barely knew the man.

Sorry, I think I confused you with someone else with a similar screen name that supports speed limits.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over."

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such. I don't lose sleep over it when someone makes a comment about me or has a conflicting view, neither should you.

You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat".

Maybe the Winnipesaukee definition should be "hunted" instead of "hunter". How about a new encyclopedia for Winnipesaukee? We can call it Winnipedia instead of Wikipedia!

These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by overlook

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.
.

Yes it is.The point were trying to make is if that drunk had been going 25 do you think the results would have been any different?You know as well as we do the answer is no. Of course there have been accidents with speeds greater than 45/25.There have far more at speeds less than 45/25.Maybe we should have a much lower limit than 45/25.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such.

Legal definition of libel: (n.) “To publish in print, writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.”
fficeffice" />>>
It really doesn’t matter how “heated” a topic is, or how passionate you are about it. If you cannot take part in a public debate without resorting to personal attacks, you really should stay out of the debate.>>
>>

You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.

I have explained that I am extremely literal. I can’t help that. So when someone accuses me of making a statement that I never made, in an obvious attempt to discredit me, it really bothers me. My statement was in response to ITD’s comment that “the safety issue is BS no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.”
>>
ITD misquoted me, because what I actually posted was: It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time. The two happen to have completely different meanings, and when I tried to point that out, you (who were note even part of that discussion) jumped all over me, and quoted me 5 times to show everyone how I supposedly contradicted myself. THAT was a PERSONAL attack on me. It was an obvious attempt to discredit me, it was intentional, and it was malicious – so it is definitely libel according to the legal definition. So back off.
>>

These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.

You guys keep bringing up the “fact” that the 150 foot rule is all that needs to be enforced to keep people like me safe. The problem is that that 150 foot rule is often unintentionally broken because the operator of a powerboat does not see us in time – because he was going too fast!!! The 150 foot rule alone is NOT protecting me from high speed boats.

My main argument (just in case you’re missing it) is that a speed limit will slow down the powerboaters (who are traveling faster than their ability to spot small, slow-moving boats) to a speed in which they will have more time to notice us – which will enable them to stay outside of our 150 foot zone. It is my contention that a speed limit law will decrease the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

[winnidiver]

Last August on a Sat.I was heading from Lee's Mills to Wolfeboro with my dive gear to watch my son take his last certification dive at Clark's Point.I was down past Parker at about 7:00 am going around 35mph when I heard a noise.It sounded like a big wave,like a boat slowing fast,I heard it over the noise of my own motor.I looked back behind me on the starboard side and saw a bass boat with his bow straight up in the air.If I had been in the stern I could have touched him .I turned hard to port and when he got the bow down he gunned it and turned right,and took off.I never saw him again.Was he going over 45?I don't know.I do know if he had been going slower he would have had more time to see me during the few times he was looking ahead.I don't know what he was doing in that boat but it wasn't driving.We were the only two boats in sight so I guess he got careless.He almost ruined what turn out to be a great day. What's the answer slow down or pay attention? All I know is you can't legislate "pay attention". PS My son did get certified and now we dive together.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

MP data for violations, and the latest Coast Guard report shows that most violations are occurring under the proposed speeds. They do record the speed, I will agree that the speeds are not conclusive, but the types of violations indicate speed was not the problem. For example the most common speed related accident is a skier or tube. A skier that cuts the wake can exceed 45, the boat is should only be at 36 at most unless they are barefooting. Most collisions happen under 10, docking or poor maneuverability.

You can pick and choose when you travel to and from, Just like I attempt to avoid the Wiers when it is congested. (Ever try to maneuver 38' twin with 34" props, engaging one at a time to maintain the flow of traffic and then some rental boat cuts out of Thurston's) we have our concerns too.

The performance boats that are traveling in open water at high speed are not violating any current law, and I might add there is no such thing as UNLIMITED SPEED. E=MC2

[gtxrider]

I want to know what statistics are used to determine a speed limit is needed. Is it the number of accidents caused by high speed? How many were there on the lake last year? I think tax dollars can be better spent! Just like Arlen Spector looking into whether or not the PATS taped the RAMS walk thru. Lets worry about cutting waste in government.

MY 2 CENTS

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:
I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

One would think you would prefer the Baidarka to the kayak.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.

What riles me is when an ESTIMATE of 28 mph is portrayed as FACT , while speed limit FACTS gathered by the same organization are potrayed as wrong.
Which way do you want it? Or do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your face to suit your needs

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

That's odd...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I live up in Littleton, only a couple of miles from Moore Reservoir, which is a dammed up (~10 miles) portion of the Connecticut River. Moore is a totally undeveloped lake, where it’s not uncommon to see a bald eagle or two. I do most of my paddling up here, but I do get down to the Lakes Region fairly often as well, as it’s only about an hour drive for me. I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn. So I was excited when I discovered this site, with all the information about the Lakes Region! Anyhoo, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you all know that I love this site … especially these forums.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

That's odd...

Maybe you should just start a "Bash Evenstar" thread. Frankly I'm getting a bit sick of constantly having to defend myself here.

That post of mine that you quoted is 3 years old! It would have been nice if you had mentioned that. I happen to be a very fast learner, and a very dedicated kayaker and sailor.

I have learned a great deal over the past 3 boating seasons.

I have paddled roughly 800 miles on NH lakes since then (I keep a journal).

I have attended a navagation workshop (on coastal navigation) at UNH.

I had attended two advanced paddling seminars.

I have white water kayaked on class III Rapids.

I have kayaked on coastal waters.

I am employed by the athletic department at my university, where I am responsible for the instruction and supervision of kayaks used by students, and have had rescue training (where I operate a Zodiac on the bay), as well as cpr and first-aid training.

I am also an NCAA athlete, as a member of my university's sailing team, and a registered member of the Inter-Collegiate Sailing Association. My team is currently ranked 8th in North America (out of 118 colleges). I am training with and competing with likely future Olympic athletes. My coach also competes in international sailing regattas.

I have to study and know the "Racing Rules of Sailing", which includes both the International Sailing Federation Racing Rules and the US Sailing Rules. The book is an inch thick.

My last race was on Nov. 3rd, at MIT, on the day that a huricane was just off the east coast.

I think that quallifies me as being "a very experienced boater."

If you still don't believe that I'm very experienced, you're invited to try kayaking with me sometime, or perhaps you would like to try ocean sailing in Feburary on Naragansette Bay in a 13 foot Vanguard. I doubt that you would last 30 minutes out there - we have 3 hour practice sessions on the two bays here, 4 days a week. And then we spend weekends competing all over New England.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Evenstar;62790You guys keep bringing up the “fact” that the 150 foot rule is all that needs to be enforced to keep people like me safe. The problem is that that 150 foot rule is often unintentionally broken [U

because the operator of a powerboat does not see us in time [/U]– because he was going too fast!!! The 150 foot rule alone is NOT protecting me from high speed boats.

So what your really saying is that because of the poor visablity of your boat everyone else should be punished.....OR.....I would be willing to bet that if someone pulled up along side you going 6 mph or less that you wouldn't be scared.....

which is it???

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by GWC...

That's odd...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn.

All that experience gained in just a few years. Amazing...

I think you may like these even better:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Apparently you don't know kayaks very well. My avatar image is a 16' sea kayak. That's the type of kayak that I'm planning on taking on Winni.

And my personal favorite:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Ok, I have no personal experience with fast boats, so I'm likely a bit clueless here.

[Hottrucks]

Now thats funny I don't care who you are.........

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

So what your really saying is that because of the poor visablity of your boat everyone else should be punished.....OR.....I would be willing to bet that if someone pulled up along side you going 6 mph or less that you wouldn't be scared.....

which is it???

No. That's not what I am saying at all. My 16 foot sea kayak and I are very visible. It is the idiots that are traveling too fast to see me that are the problem. Speed is the issue here. In good weather, I can usually spot other kayaks when they are a mile away. It's amazing how much more you can see (or notice) when you just slow down.

High-speed boaters have even hit islands on Winni - I guess we need to make islands more visible as well.

You guys keep claiming that only 1% or the boats on Winni go over 45 mph - So how is "everybody else" being punished???

My own experience has been that some powerboat operators are traveling at speeds beyond their ability to see smaller boats. The obvious solution is to slow these boats down.

I sail (and kayak) on the ocean - I'm not a timid boater - I compete as an NCAA athlete as a member of my university's saling team. Competition sailing is a very demanding, intense sport. And we practice and compete in all types of weather and conditions. And no one would pull up beside me at 6mph or less, unless I let them.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Evenstar.

This is not a slam and is a sincere question.

You are the only person I know who has traveled 800 miles in a kayak.

I would like to understand if you tend to kayak close to shore or across the broads or what percentage of miles would you attribute to each?

The second question is, do you perceive that boats violate the 150 foot rule with you because they don't see you or don't care?

Do you have a feeling for how often boats violate your 150 foot circle at a speed above 6mph.

Thank you in advance for helping my understanding.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

All that experience gained in just a few years. Amazing...

Apparently I'm a pretty amazing woman, because if you go up a couple of posts, you'll see why I feel that I can state that I'm a very experienced boater.

BTW: All those quotes, including your favorate one, were things that I wrote more than THREE years ago!!!, and all were made before I even purchased my sea kayak, and all were made before I ever kayaked on Winni.

What I wrote back then (which you so helpfully took the time to find and post) actually show that I had no hidden agenda before I first kayaked on Winni. The entire reason that I'm so for a speed limit now is that I had dangerous encounters with high speed boaters on my very first paddle on Winni (and I have had additional encounters since).

[winnidiver]

I am really not in favor of speed limits on the lake.My personal observation is most boats don't go over 45.But I thought I would stick up for Evenstar.Go though the forum threads for last summer and read all the Capt B stories.Now what makes you think that it is unbelievable that boats come too close to her.On any summer weekend and most week days in July and August I can have quite a few boats go by me to close,and I am in a 19' cuddy. When I am in my kayak I am mostly in bays and narrow parts of the lake so they go even closer.I guess my kayaks are more stable though I have never been swamped.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by winnidiver

I am really not in favor of speed limits on the lake.My personal observation is most boats don't go over 45.But I thought I would stick up for Evenstar.Go though the forum threads for last summer and read all the Capt B stories.Now what makes you think that it is unbelievable that boats come too close to her.On any summer weekend and most week days in July and August I can have quite a few boats go by me to close,and I am in a 19' cuddy. When I am in my kayak I am mostly in bays and narrow parts of the lake so they go even closer.I guess my kayaks are more stable though I have never been swamped.

Winnidiver,

You are correct. That is what is really happening on the lake.

I believe that boats come too close to Evenstar in his or her opinion. I also believe that Evenstar is very concerned about this.

I kayak as well and I also have a powerboat. There are two different lakes when I am in the kayak vs. when I am in the powerboat. However, I have not read anything that tells me the powerboats that are concerning Evenstar are traveling more than 45 MPH. I just read that they are going fast. When you are in a kayak and a boat is within 400' of you going 30 MPH, from your observation point, it is going fast!

I have one rule with the kayaks. I use this rule and my children aged 12 to 24 also use this rule. The rule is: On weekends and when there are a lot of powerboats in the area, stay within 150 feet of shore. We are located very close to the exit of the Weirs Channel, on the lake side. This is a very busy place! This rule works great for us!

None of the boats that come close to us are moving more than 10 MPH. If these boats observed the 150’ rule, they would not be moving more than 6 MPH that close to shore. From time to time a boat traveling 15 to 20 MPH comes close, but that boat is well below the proposed 45 MPH speed limit and already violating the 150' rule.

We also tow the kayaks to other areas of the lake to enjoy the various wildlife and other lake environments. While in the kayaks, we always make sure our paddles are brightly colored, that we wear bright colored PDFs and that we pay close attention to what is happening around us. This is the kayaker's version of maintaining a proper lookout.

We completely enjoy both our powerboat and the kayaks, even though we are close to the Weirs a busy part if the lake. We feel that there is a time and a place for each and everything regarding our boating on the lake.

We do not kayak in the middle of the broads. Wherever we kayak, we make sure we are highly visible by wearing the bright colors We do not kayak more than 20' from shore at night, but we do kayak at night with the proper lighting.

I feel the rules we have today on the lake, specifically the 150' rule, if properly followed and strongly enforced; give us the boating environment we want in both our kayaks and our powerboat.

If there was to be additional speed limits on the lake, in addition to the numerous no wake zones and the headway speed 150' rule, they should be made in the interest of all safety minded boaters. This includes the GFBL crowd. 45 MPH across the entire lake is too restrictive to all boaters, but 25 to 30 MPH at night seems to make sense.

My personal opinion is we should not be kayaking in broads more than 500' from shore. To do so shows a complete disregard for personal safety and all common sense. A rule restricting speed to 45 MPH daytime for some areas of the lake while allowing higher speeds in the broads really makes sense to me. This gives something for everyone. Some may feel this is too complicated, but to me with the numerous no rafting zones and no wake zones, different rules for different areas of the lake already exist.

I realize the folks with homes on the islands are very concerned about the speed of powerboats and I do not question their concern. However, there are no islands in the broads, so why are they so concerned about what happens out there?

We have a big lake that is absolutely wonderful. It should be available for everyone, while maintaining the safety of everyone. The current proposal in this year’s HR 847 is too restrictive and not at all supported by any collected speed data on our lake. Because we have the 150' rule, comparing our lake to lakes without the 150' rule makes no sense at all.

If the MP were able to focus on enforcing the existing 150' rule, coupled with the safe boating education certificate now and for the first time applicable to everyone, our lake will be a safe place for all.

If the MP gets stretched with enforcing the current rules and also enforcing a new 45 MPH daytime speed limit across the entire lake, it will be more dangerous kayaking where safety minded folks kayak: within 150' of the shore. This is because without more MPs at an added cost, how can we expect them to do what they do today, plus enforce the new speed limit? The MP are already doing the best job that they can do in making our lake safe.

The kayaker part of me and of my family is very concerned that the 45 MPH speed limit across the whole lake will dilute the enforcement of the existing 150' rule close to shore, making safety minded kayaking significantly less safe.

Please think about this!

R2B

[Bear Islander]

I agree that a 45 mph limit in the broads in not necessary. It could easily have been part of a compromise, but "NO LIMITS" was the opposition stance.

The only problem I can see with an exception is how do you specify exactly where the excepted area is. If people can't figure out what constitutes 150' how can they agree where "The Broads" is.

Perhaps it could be specified by a minimum distance from shore. The must be a distance that would only work in the broads.

[Hottrucks]

One thing I have not heard anybody say is How far is 150 feet....ok 50 yards!! I think alot of the problem lies in the judgement of distance...I would like to see marker bouy's with large signs showing what 150 is....this way people could get a better idea of what safe passage is....with a few well placed high travel areas in the no wake zones this would enlighten ALOTof PEOPLE

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I kayak as well and I also have a powerboat. There are two different lakes when I am in the kayak vs. when I am in the powerboat. However, I have not read anything that tells me the powerboats that are concerning Evenstar are traveling more than 45 MPH. I just read that they are going fast. When you are in a kayak and a boat is within 400' of you going 30 MPH, from your observation point, it is going fast!

I have one rule with the kayaks. I use this rule and my children aged 12 to 24 also use this rule. The rule is: On weekends and when there are a lot of powerboats in the area, stay within 150 feet of shore. We are located very close to the exit of the Weirs Channel, on the lake side. This is a very busy place! This rule works great for us!

None of the boats that come close to us are moving more than 10 MPH. If these boats observed the 150’ rule, they would not be moving more than 6 MPH that close to shore. From time to time a boat traveling 15 to 20 MPH comes close, but that boat is well below the proposed 45 MPH speed limit and already violating the 150' rule.

We also tow the kayaks to other areas of the lake to enjoy the various wildlife and other lake environments. While in the kayaks, we always make sure our paddles are brightly colored, that we wear bright colored PDFs and that we pay close attention to what is happening around us. This is the kayaker's version of maintaining a proper lookout.

We completely enjoy both our powerboat and the kayaks, even though we are close to the Weirs a busy part if the lake. We feel that there is a time and a place for each and everything regarding our boating on the lake.

We do not kayak in the middle of the broads. Wherever we kayak, we make sure we are highly visible by wearing the bright colors We do not kayak more than 20' from shore at night, but we do kayak at night with the proper lighting.

I feel the rules we have today on the lake, specifically the 150' rule, if properly followed and strongly enforced; give us the boating environment we want in both our kayaks and our powerboat.

If there was to be additional speed limits on the lake, in addition to the numerous no wake zones and the headway speed 150' rule, they should be made in the interest of all safety minded boaters. This includes the GFBL crowd. 45 MPH across the entire lake is too restrictive to all boaters, but 25 to 30 MPH at night seems to make sense.

My personal opinion is we should not be kayaking in broads more than 500' from shore. To do so shows a complete disregard for personal safety and all common sense. A rule restricting speed to 45 MPH daytime for some areas of the lake while allowing higher speeds in the broads really makes sense to me. This gives something for everyone. Some may feel this is too complicated, but to me with the numerous no rafting zones and no wake zones, different rules for different areas of the lake already exist.

I realize the folks with homes on the islands are very concerned about the speed of powerboats and I do not question their concern. However, there are no islands in the broads, so why are they so concerned about what happens out there?

We have a big lake that is absolutely wonderful. It should be available for everyone, while maintaining the safety of everyone. The current proposal in this year’s HR 847 is too restrictive and not at all supported by any collected speed data on our lake. Because we have the 150' rule, comparing our lake to lakes without the 150' rule makes no sense at all.

If the MP were able to focus on enforcing the existing 150' rule, coupled with the safe boating education certificate now and for the first time applicable to everyone, our lake will be a safe place for all.

If the MP gets stretched with enforcing the current rules and also enforcing a new 45 MPH daytime speed limit across the entire lake, it will be more dangerous kayaking where safety minded folks kayak: within 150' of the shore. This is because without more MPs at an added cost, how can we expect them to do what they do today, plus enforce the new speed limit? The MP are already doing the best job that they can do in making our lake safe.

The kayaker part of me and of my family is very concerned that the 45 MPH speed limit across the whole lake will dilute the enforcement of the existing 150' rule close to shore, making safety minded kayaking significantly less safe.

Please think about this!

R2B

Resident 2B -- You have nailed it !

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I think that quallifies me as being "a very experienced boater."

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy. So with your impressive boating experience resume above you "think" that qualifies you to be called "very experienced"? You sound very well trained. Experience comes from time and mileage , not classes or text books.
I've boated / owned / operated / sailed boats from canoes , through numerous sailboats , small outboards , large outboards , larger I/Os , from walking speed to over 90 mph for the past 50 years. 800 miles a season is low for me (logged on a GPS). I've done as much as 1500 a season. Here I thought I was very well experienced Aside from being older than dirt , whats that make me
Last monday , there was a patient in my office who was a fortyfive years old commercial tugboat captain who pilots a 90' 3600 hp tug from Louisianna to Cape Cod moving oil barges. He lives aboard his boat 2 to 3 weeks at a time then off a week. Now THERE is some experience. He made me feel like a new kid.
Believe me , youv'e only scratched the surface

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy. So with your impressive boating experience resume above you "think" that qualifies you to be called "very experienced"? You sound very well trained. Experience comes from time and mileage , not classes or text books.

For your information 99% of my "classes" have taken place out on the water. You guys say that the problem is boater education, yet when I bring up my own education, you rip me apart (yet again).

I'm really sick of others here making statements about how inexperienced I am - when I can almost guarantee that I can out kayak and out sail most of you. This is supposed to be a community forum - not a place to personally attack anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you. I would hate living in a world where everyone agreed with me (That would be a really boring place.), but I always try to respect the views of others. However, I quickly lose respect for anyone who has to stoop to personal attacks to debate an issue.

Dictionary defintiion: Experienced: –adjective

1.	wise or skillful in a particular field through experience: an experienced teacher." —Synonyms 1. skilled, expert, practiced, veteran, accomplished, versed, adept, qualified.

Since I am very skilled, practiced, accomplished, versed, and adept at kayaking, that means that I should be able to say that I'm very experienced at kayaking. Since my kayak is a boat - that gives me the right to state that I'm a very experienced boater. You you think that I am exaggerating my skill, you're invited to try kayaking with me anytime.

I'm a competing member of one of the top colligiate sailing teams in North America - and I'm a NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Inter-collegiate Sailing Association of North America. So I have proof that I'm qualified - by the governing authority for sailing competition.

From collegesailing.org: "College sailing began on an informal, club basis in the 1890's, and organized racing started in 1928. It has grown to include more than 200 active colleges, and racing now occurs on every weekend during fall and spring seasons and on many weekends during the winter. It is a truly coeducational sport, and it has proved itself the best incubator for the development of racing skills. Former college sailors have always numbered significantly among Olympic medallists and America's Cup competitors."


Experience is not solely based on the time you spend doing somthing - it is also based on your level of skill. You could do something for decades, but never become very skilled at it. For example, if you have skiied for 20 years, but never advanced beyond the beginner's slopes, most other skiiers would not consider you to be an experienced skiier - you would still be a beginner in their eyes. Yet someone who wins downhill races is considered to be a very experiened skiier, no matter how long they have been skiing.

Competitive colliegate sailing requires a very high degree of skill. It is very different from recreational sailing - we are always pushing ourselves and our boats to the limits - but we do so while following all the racing rules of sailing. My coach would not allow me to compete unless I had the skill to do so.

And there's a huge difference beween paddling 800 miles under your own power and putting 800 miles sitting on the padded seat of a powerboat, where a motor does all the work. I've operated a powerboat, so I know that it takes a lot more skill to paddle a sea kayak, or to sail a racing boat successfully - expecially in some of the conditions that I have experienced.

Yes, there are more experienced kayakers and sailors than me. But that does not mean that I am not very experienced at what I do. A person is judged by their peers - my peers consider me to be a very experienced boater.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Experience is not solely based on the time you spend doing somthing - it is also based on your level of skill. You could do something for decades, but never become very skilled at it. For example, if you have skiied for 20 years, but never advanced beyond the beginner's slopes, most other skiiers would not consider you to be an experienced skiier - you would still be a beginner in their eyes. Yet someone who wins downhill races is considered to be a very experiened skiier, no matter how long they have been skiing.

And there's a huge difference beween paddling 800 miles under your own power and putting 800 miles sitting on the padded seat of a powerboat, where a motor does all the work. I've operated a powerboat, so I know that it takes a lot more skill to paddle a sea kayak, or to sail a racing boat successfully - expecially in some of the conditions that I have experienced.

I agree about most of your explanation of experience above, but if you are very good at something but have not been doing it long I do not think that qualifies as experienced. I am an experienced skier, pretty good but not pro and I have been doing it for 20 years. One of my employees just started this year and being that he is very athletic (triathalons, etc) he got pretty good very quickly. His skill is good, but lack of time does not qualify him to be experienced in my opinion.

I found a pretty good site about the dynamics of kayaks and speed, here is a quote from it:

"Most recreational paddling speeds are about 2 - 3.5 knots. Energetic cruising speeds are largely in the 3.5 - 5.5 knots range. Speeds higher than 6 knots are in the realm of long distance racing and sprinting. Olympic sprint speeds average 9.98 knots (off the chart )."

Figuring that claim to have done 800 miles last year and are probably in the 3-5 knot range on average usually being athletic, that puts you on the water for between 160-260 hours per year in a kayak at absolute minimum figuring that you are not always at those speeds. I have to say that seems a bit much to comprehend when you are so active with sailing, etc.... ???? Sorry, gotta question you on that one... Don't you have a job???

[codeman671]

Evenstar, per your PM I do stand corrected. 800 miles in 3 years, not 1. Post #127. I replied to your PM.

Based on this and the 5mph you state that you travel at, it is 53 hours per season total on the water in a kayak. I will let the rest determine your level of experience in boating overall.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

One thing I have not heard anybody say is How far is 150 feet....ok 50 yards!! I think alot of the problem lies in the judgement of distance...I would like to see marker bouy's with large signs showing what 150 is....this way people could get a better idea of what safe passage is....with a few well placed high travel areas in the no wake zones this would enlighten ALOTof PEOPLE

I agree this would be a great idea. How do we get a half dozen of these reference markers installed? I think we could all benefit by being reminded of what a 150 feet on the water looks like.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I agree this would be a great idea. How do we get a half dozen of these reference markers installed? I think we could all benefit by being reminded of what a 150 feet on the water looks like.

Two water ski lines or 75' + 75' = 150'

[WeirsBeachBoater]

There is one in Ctr Harbor, Wolfeboro, I believe Ames Farm, and Meredith. I may have forgotten some. But these are orange cans, with White sleeves and green and black writing. There is a corresponding sign on the dock to tell you that it is 150' to the buoy. These were petitioned by the only organization that really is about safety, NHRBA. NHMP installed these 2 seasons ago!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Evenstar. This is not a slam and is a sincere question.

Ok, but if you are truely sincere, you won't try to twist my responses and use them against me (and I would appreciate it if others didn't either). As far as the 150 foot rule goes, it has been my experience that:

1. the rule is broken a LOT.
2. it is broken by boats traveling less than 45 mph and by boats traveling over 45 mph.
3. The danger increases with the speed of the boat. The ones that don't seem to see me are usually the faster boats.

[quote]You are the only person I know who has traveled 800 miles in a kayak./quote]
The 800 miles that I've logged is over 3 seasons. In at least one of those seasons I was on the water from April 16th until mid Nov, which is 7 months, but if I just use 5 months as an average season, that's 15 months total, which is ~53 miles a month average. I have paddled over 50 miles in 3 days. (Note: my logged time over the past 3 seasons is not even close to the total amount of miles that I have paddled - as it's only from those 3 seasons, and it does not include my paddling time here at my university, on the bay.)

I would like to understand if you tend to kayak close to shore or across the broads or what percentage of miles would you attribute to each?

First of all I've made it clear that most of my paddling time has been on other large NH lakes, so there's no way that a percentage would have any real meaning. In general, I do most of my paddling 1/4 mile or more from shore. I stay closer to shore whenever I take a beginner with me, or when the water is very cold (although I now have a drysuit, so cold water is no longer as much of an issue.)

The second question is, do you perceive that boats violate the 150 foot rule with you because they don't see you or don't care?

As far as high-speed boats, both. Some obviously didn't see me/us, based on their reactions and expressions (yes, they were that close!). Other boaters and especially guys on PWC, have come directly at us at high speeds, getting way closeer than 150 feet, thinking that it was funny (they were laughing). Others just didn't seem to have a clue that they were doing anything wrong. I would extimate that I have experienced roughly the same number of violations from each group.

Do you have a feeling for how often boats violate your 150 foot circle at a speed above 6mph.

I have seldom been out on a large NH lake, without having my 150 foot space violated at least once. I have never paddled on Winni without it happening several times (and I'm talking about boats well in excess of 6mph).

Thank you in advance for helping my understanding.

You're welcome.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

There is one in Ctr Harbor, Wolfeboro, I believe Ames Farm, and Meredith. I may have forgotten some. But these are orange cans, with White sleeves and green and black writing. There is a corresponding sign on the dock to tell you that it is 150' to the buoy. These were petitioned by the only organization that really is about safety, NHRBA. NHMP installed these 2 seasons ago!

Those bouys made me realize I was staying well over 150 feet from other boats, docks, swimlines etc. in the past. I have adjusted and now I occasionally get gestures from folks who think I am too close. This makes me wonder if folks who routinely feel violated by 150 foot violations really know how close 150 feet really is...

That said, I am occasionally the "victim" of obvious 150 foot violations, but I really don't care at all as long as they don't force me to come off plane/change direction, or make water wash into my boat (actual events I've dealt with on Winnipesaukee). NOT ONCE has a GFBL been involved in the above. It's either been big cruisers or ordinary family runabouts.

[Hottrucks]

Maybe the isue here is that the 150 rule is only a NH law not in other states that have it...SO people not in the know break it........Kinda like the window tint thing if your from the south everybody has it ( relation If you use to running rivers) up north window tint is illegal ( relation passing someone on plane in the river is common practice but illegal here )

I have a terrible issue's when I run down in Fla with passing a large boat ( house's) or going by the end of the docks.....I'm going a nice no wake speed and everyone in the boat looks at me like I'm a crack addict as I try to fight my way further from shore....If anyone has been in Tampa bay you'll understand or look into it next time your landing there....( the canals are close to shore so they can get ther boats out kinda like driveways to the street) anyway down ther everyone cruz's along @ a speed that is comfortable in a canal thats not more than 500 feet wide just like driving on a back road

Every one wants to use lake George for an example but I would bet that more people get flipped off and MF'd because they are going to fast to close. I would also bet there's alot more rubbing fenders than is reported...

Food for thought????

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave R

This makes me wonder if folks who routinely feel violated by 150 foot violations really know how close 150 feet really is....

I wonder about that too. I've seen my wife complain about somebody tailgating her while she's half that distance to the car in front of her
I have my own 150' scale to train myself on. My property in 150' deep so anytime I pull out of the driveway , as I head up the street just have to the left to the fence in the rear of the yard. It is somewhat smaller than you might think. This time of year the boat's there and the bow is 120' from the sidewalk. This could be part of some peoples complaints

[JayDV]

Although not exact, 150 ft is about the distance between telephone poles.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have seldom been out on a large NH lake, without having my 150 foot space violated at least once. I have never paddled on Winni without it happening several times (and I'm talking about boats well in excess of 6mph).

The 150' rule is the major rule violated, not speed. This is a major point of everyone that opposes the speed limit. I have boats well within 150' of me every day I am on the lake. Try going into Glendale on a Saturday at noon. Total chaos. Having two boats traveling at 45mph at less than 150' can be even more dangerous than 1 at 45mph and 1 kayak. That puts a closing speed of up to 90mph, and the slightest error by either driver can cause an incident. Nobody here is arguing your point that the faster the speed, the less time to react.

I am really never bothered at such close range by performance boats, if for some reason it is they are usually driving at normal, family boating speeds. It is the family boater that poses the problem.

I would gladly volunteer my boat for an afternoon to haul around anyone that doubts it. No MARINE PATROL down the side to change anyone elses reactions. Politicians welcome too! As long as you don't mind hearing a lot of Jimmy Buffett...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

The 150' rule is the major rule violated, not speed. . . . Having two boats traveling at 45mph at less than 150' can be even more dangerous than 1 at 45mph and 1 kayak. That puts a closing speed of up to 90mph, and the slightest error by either driver can cause an incident. Nobody here is arguing your point that the faster the speed, the less time to react.

But two 45mph powerboats likely see each other, well before 150 feet. This is not always the case with powerboat/kayak encounters.

The problem it that the 150 foot rule is often violated unintentionally.

It doesn't seem to matter that my kayak is a highly visible color - many high-speed boat operators are apparently traveling at speeds that are beyond their visual abilities (or of their attention span). Allowing speeds above 45mph just adds to this danger.

I would gladly volunteer my boat for an afternoon to haul around anyone that doubts it.

And I will make myself available to anyone with a kayak (or who can spective borrow one) who is willing to see this from the paddler's perspective - but I will warn you that we won't be hugging the shore, or staying in the coves.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Cal

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy)

That's an understatement.