Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > Boating
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2021, 09:13 AM   #1
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,092
Thanks: 523
Thanked 834 Times in 318 Posts
Default New safety lanyard law

I wonder if this new law is applicable to inland waters in NH?


https://uscgboating.org/recreational...ff-devices.php
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 09:28 AM   #2
Cow Man
Member
 
Cow Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cow Island / Holderness, NH
Posts: 42
Thanks: 3
Thanked 15 Times in 5 Posts
Default

I don't believe so. This has to do with USCG regulated waters. However, its a safe bet that NH will adopt similar regulations where the marine patrol has jurisdiction in the near future.
Cow Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 09:35 AM   #3
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

So this new rule doesn't apply to the Honda 2.3-hp outboard commonly used on small sailboats because it is smaller than 3-hp. Maybe the Coast Guard should change the rule to include the 2-hp engine.

New April 1, 2021 safety lanyard wearing rule applies to 3-hp and larger engines on boats up to 25' 11" in all the 50 states, inland waters and coastal ocean waters. It applies to all U.S. navigable waters.

Does this new rule apply to Lake Winnipesaukee? The smart money say that YES, it does! So, while N.H. does not have a required seat belt law for driving a car, it now has a required safety lanyard use rule for driving a boat, effective April 1, 2021.

You know that here in N.H., truck drivers are required to use seat belts by federal rule, while car drivers have a choice on seat belts under N.H. state law.
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-04-2021 at 10:21 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 09:39 AM   #4
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 786
Thanks: 95
Thanked 191 Times in 123 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
I wonder if this new law is applicable to inland waters in NH?


https://uscgboating.org/recreational...ff-devices.php
In the first Paragraph it states "The law applies on all "Navigable Waters of the US"." So......
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 09:49 AM   #5
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 403
Thanks: 136
Thanked 165 Times in 99 Posts
Default

I think Cow Man is correct. Itís only waters that are managed by USCG. But state laws will likely adopt it.

https://www.wakeboardingmag.com/stor...-off-switches/
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
Cow Man (04-04-2021)
Sponsored Links
Old 04-04-2021, 11:22 AM   #6
Cow Man
Member
 
Cow Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cow Island / Holderness, NH
Posts: 42
Thanks: 3
Thanked 15 Times in 5 Posts
Default

The key in my opinion is that this rule applies specifically to "Navigable waters."

The Coast Guard defines navigable waters as, "Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce." - 33 CFR Part 329

New Hampshire went to a lot of trouble a few years back arguing successfully that NH lakes are not navigable waters and consequently not under coastguard jurisdiction.

That said, it would be wise to use the lanyard if you have one.
Cow Man is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cow Man For This Useful Post:
CooperS7777 (04-04-2021)
Old 04-04-2021, 12:13 PM   #7
MotorHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 280
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Does this mean, if the lanyard is not attached to you or your life jacket, you will be ticketed?
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 12:14 PM   #8
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 419
Thanks: 95
Thanked 191 Times in 117 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
I wonder if this new law is applicable to inland waters in NH?


https://uscgboating.org/recreational...ff-devices.php
I never used the lanyard until I attached it to one of those elastic key chains you wear on your wrist. Now, I try and get everyone who drives the boat to slip it on their wrist. It is quick and easy which is helping to get all the different boat drivers in the habit. From my observation, the younger the driver, the more likely they are to remember and do it.
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 01:21 PM   #9
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 865
Thanked 1,113 Times in 698 Posts
Default Enforceable?

Tough to enforce as a "primary stop" since nobody can see the lanyard. If you get stopped for some other reason, stand up to get your wallet/registration, it may be obvious, but not if you have it on your wrist as described above.
This is probably a good idea, especially if you like "Nanny laws", but like seat belts and M/C helmets, no special law will change much. Eventually, mfg's will put a pressure switch in the seat as an ECOS, just like my lawnmower.
Recall, not so many years ago, a single operator was ejected when his steering failed and the boat turned suddenly. The boat kept running in circles, but it was some time before the operator was found. No PFD! When you're alone, where a self-inflating PFD.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 08:31 PM   #10
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

For sail boaters, it should be required a handcuff be used to attach sailor's wrist to the tiller handle. This will encourage sailor to keep from flipp'n sailboat with himself handcuffed to tiller handle. ...... whoopsie ....... just a thought! ....
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2021, 09:00 PM   #11
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,213
Thanks: 396
Thanked 1,670 Times in 671 Posts
Default

The first time many people become aware of the kill switch lanyard is when the clip falls off the switch and they can't figure out why the boat won't start.
TiltonBB is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
jst_4_kiks (04-05-2021)
Old 04-05-2021, 07:31 AM   #12
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
The first time many people become aware of the kill switch lanyard is when the clip falls off the switch and they can't figure out why the boat won't start.
Or when the boat shuts off unexpectedly and wont restart.

I have seen that more than once and in at least one situation where it was dangerous, in the Merrimack river and current was moving fast due to the tide change.

There is value to lanyard kill switches, but I dont agree they are always needed, and a seat switch (like on a lawn mower) would be a huge problem in some boats where you stand more than you sit during operation.

I dont see a perfect perfect solution to the concern some have about out of control boats.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
Descant (04-05-2021)
Old 04-05-2021, 07:54 AM   #13
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post

I dont see a perfect perfect solution to the concern some have about out of control boats.
Here's a perfect perfect solution ....... even a small row boat with two wood oars can go out of control when just one of the oars slides down the oar lock, and moves across the water, away from the reach of the rower.

The perfect perfect solution is to pin the oars with a ss 10-24 x 3" round head screw that mounts the oar within the oar lock ....... that was too easy! .....
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 08:53 AM   #14
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Here's a perfect perfect solution ....... even a small row boat with two wood oars can go out of control when just one of the oars slides down the oar lock, and moves across the water, away from the reach of the rower.

The perfect perfect solution is to pin the oars with a ss 10-24 x 3" round head screw that mounts the oar within the oar lock ....... that was too easy! .....
Interesting, I dont think I have ever used a row boat without pinned oars, but then I have only been using them since the 1960's,,,

Now I have seen row boats where the oar locks were not secured at the bottom (into the socket) and depending on the angle they were mounted, you could have a problem with the oar lock trying to ride up and out.

But then none of that has anything to do with this thread. So I propose we discuss loose change falling out of boat operators pockets and options to prevent such. Its as relevant to the new lanyard law as row boat oars and possibly more so, as an operator attempting to retrieve his/her lost change might twist/move in such a way as to unintentionally pull on the lanyard and shutdown the vessel. Would this be a helpful or dangerous application of the kill switch?
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
CooperS7777 (04-05-2021)
Old 04-05-2021, 08:56 AM   #15
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cow Man View Post
I don't believe so. This has to do with USCG regulated waters. However, its a safe bet that NH will adopt similar regulations where the marine patrol has jurisdiction in the near future.
Maybe not... we don't have a mandatory seat belt law.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 08:56 AM   #16
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

The concept of a cutoff is fine I get it, having manufacturers put them on vessels under a certain size, great idea. Making it mandatory to use them is stupid. The only application of mandatory use that makes sense to me is a jet ski because of the very high likelihood you're going to get separated from the vehicle while in use.

The rest of this is just feel good nonsense. If a boat is being operated in a responsible manner a lanyard should never be needed. In fact I would argue that an unexpected engine cut out at a good say 30-35 MPH has the potential to be even more dangerous as passengers may not be prepared for that and get thrown all over the place. Even better for a wake surfer who is literally feet off the back of the boat. Bet that transom will taste good.

I bet this causes more injuries than it is supposed to avoid.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
8gv (04-05-2021)
Old 04-05-2021, 08:59 AM   #17
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
In the first Paragraph it states "The law applies on all "Navigable Waters of the US"." So......
Here's an interesting article...

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/18/a...%2C%20Reprs%20
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 09:02 AM   #18
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorHead View Post
Does this mean, if the lanyard is not attached to you or your life jacket, you will be ticketed?
If you're in navigable waters controlled by the CG... NH inland waters are not.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 09:49 AM   #19
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

You know that truck drivers are required to wear seat belts in N.H. while it is a choice for car drivers.

For this new boat lanyard rule it will be an unanswered, open question, until it gets a public response from the State of N.H.
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 10:29 AM   #20
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
You know that truck drivers are required to wear seat belts in N.H. while it is a choice for car drivers.

For this new boat lanyard rule it will be an unanswered, open question, until it gets a public response from the State of N.H.
Commercial drivers come under DOT
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 12:13 PM   #21
Superduty1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 16
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Perfect, new content for North Woods Law.
Superduty1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 04:52 PM   #22
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 786
Thanks: 95
Thanked 191 Times in 123 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Interesting indeed, but that article is from 1976.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 06:47 PM   #23
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
You know that truck drivers are required to wear seat belts in N.H. while it is a choice for car drivers.

For this new boat lanyard rule it will be an unanswered, open question, until it gets a public response from the State of N.H.
And shirts and shoes required to eat inside at Sawyers also.

Damn rules for everything, what happened to Live Free or Die??? Bet all the Mass transplants get that slogan changed soon!
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 08:30 PM   #24
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
Interesting indeed, but that article is from 1976.
Why would that make a difference?
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 08:33 PM   #25
CooperS7777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 69
Thanks: 103
Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
The concept of a cutoff is fine I get it, having manufacturers put them on vessels under a certain size, great idea. Making it mandatory to use them is stupid. The only application of mandatory use that makes sense to me is a jet ski because of the very high likelihood you're going to get separated from the vehicle while in use.

The rest of this is just feel good nonsense. If a boat is being operated in a responsible manner a lanyard should never be needed. In fact I would argue that an unexpected engine cut out at a good say 30-35 MPH has the potential to be even more dangerous as passengers may not be prepared for that and get thrown all over the place. Even better for a wake surfer who is literally feet off the back of the boat. Bet that transom will taste good.

I bet this causes more injuries than it is supposed to avoid.
I don't disagree that making it mandatory is not necessarily the route the state should take. That said, I also don't think the statement that "If a boat is being operated in a responsible manner a lanyard should never be needed." could be further from the truth.

There are many situations in which proper use of a lanyard may lead to a totally different outcome at the end of the day, even in cases where the boat is being operated responsibly; steering failure, collision with debris in the water or unmarked hazards, medical emergency, mechanical failure etc. Add on top of that the number of OTHER people on the water (many of which do not operate their boats responsibly), and the potential interactions your likely to have with them while on the lake, and the possibilities are endless.

Thats almost like saying if everyone on the road operated their vehicles in accordance with laws, no one would need to wear a seat-belt.

Lastly, in MOST boats, the transition from cruise to dead stop via way of chopping the throttle or killing the engine is not typically very violent. There are times when its more abrupt than others, such as transitioning off plane, and yes, it is absolutely more abrupt than simply throttling back, but if passengers are standing and holding on, or properly seated, no one should be thrown anywhere.
CooperS7777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2021, 08:54 PM   #26
MotorHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 280
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
And shirts and shoes required to eat inside at Sawyers also.

Damn rules for everything, what happened to Live Free or Die??? Bet all the Mass transplants get that slogan changed soon!
How is this "Not just for basket of deplorables"

Sorry. could not resist. I love the lakes region and the mountains.
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2021, 12:03 AM   #27
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorHead View Post
How is this "Not just for basket of deplorables"

Sorry. could not resist. I love the lakes region and the mountains.
And I love a Sawyers burger, hotdog, cole slaw, onion rings and coffee frappe. Oh and the the rotating sign.

But this has nothing to do with lanyards, unless I pull mine out while eating Sawyers in the boat. Does mine have lanyard??? Guess I better check when PBM starts valet service,,, TICK, Tick, tick,,,
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2021, 06:49 AM   #28
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

Here's a more in-depth look at http://www.propellersafety.com/15702...itch-lanyards/ ... from January 16, 2021.

Just have to wait and see what happens with it here in NH?

What this says is first offense-$100, second offense-$250, additional offenses-$500 so will it get enforced by the NH Marine Patrol and NH Fish & Game? Probably, NH will decide what it will or will not do with new federal law and does it apply to NH waters?

For kayak it requires a safety line be attached to the paddle, so's you do not lose your paddle, and be up the creek without a paddle ...... ha-ha-ha ..... ho-ho-ho ....... just kidding about the paddle safety line ....... sorry. ...

USCG news release, March 10, 2021: http://www.propellersafety.com/15880...-news-release/
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-06-2021 at 07:21 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2021, 08:02 AM   #29
MotorHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 280
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
And I love a Sawyers burger, hotdog, cole slaw, onion rings and coffee frappe. Oh and the the rotating sign.
,,,
I think you should get a ticket just for loving Sawyers.
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2021, 09:22 AM   #30
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorHead View Post
I think you should get a ticket just for loving Sawyers.
We go EVERY opportunity, for me since the early 1960's. Though back then (for my family) it was in competition with Dots in Alton.

Only on special occasions did we go to Harts or maybe even Baileys,,,

NONE of which required safety lanyards to be served.

Actually dont recall seeing safety lanyards on boats until maybe the 90's.

Seems like they serve a purpose in rough water, but rarely a benefit to the masses.

I guess its like everything these days, we seem to almost completely ignore the major issues and focus on problems that impact very few. Five times as many people die in the US from food poisoning than in boats, but we see little progress in that industry. But lanyards in boats, thats important enough to be a requirement. Maybe so, but how we got to that before other items makes me scratch my head. I can see a number of potential requirements long before lanyards. How about automatic bilge blowers for starters,,, Never mind, this will only start more arguments.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
CooperS7777 (04-06-2021)
Old 04-06-2021, 06:13 PM   #31
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

It'll take somebody getting killed or seriously injured before this is re-thought. Just give it time......

What it won't do is fix stupid.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
CooperS7777 (04-06-2021)
Old 04-07-2021, 04:14 AM   #32
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 5,365
Thanks: 1,679
Thanked 655 Times in 465 Posts
Wink Bleeping Acronyms...

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
And I love a Sawyers burger, hotdog, cole slaw, onion rings and coffee frappe. Oh and the the rotating sign.

But this has nothing to do with lanyards, unless I pull mine out while eating Sawyers in the boat. Does mine have lanyard??? Guess I better check when PBM starts valet service,,, TICK, Tick, tick,,,
When I was growing up, this is PBM:
https://www.bing.com/imagePBMs/searc...u6fWW2ijKrK5vw
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 07:30 AM   #33
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
It'll take somebody getting killed or seriously injured before this is re-thought. Just give it time......

What it won't do is fix stupid.

Are you suggesting a new law would solve a problem?
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 09:47 AM   #34
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

On December 20, 2019 the President signed the legislation raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21-years.

Seven months later, on July 29, 2020 Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1245 which increased the age from 19 to 21 to purchase, sell or possess tobacco products here In New Hampshire.

So, what will happen with the new federal safety lanyard law? I don't think the NH house or senate majority will see a need for it and will ignore it similar to how NH treats the federal seat belt law for cars. New Hampshire loses out on maybe 5-million dollars in federal highway funds every year by not having a seat belt law, and could also lose out on federal funding for boating and water safety by ignoring this new safety lanyard law.

We don't need the feds telling us to go wear a seat belt or go wear a motor boat lanyard ...... live free or die! .... bah humbug! ....

After all, it is the principal and not the money that really and truly matters! ..... live free or die! ... bah humbug! .... ... blah-blah-blah!
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-11-2021 at 06:23 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 10:05 AM   #35
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
When I was growing up, this is PBM:
https://www.bing.com/imagePBMs/searc...u6fWW2ijKrK5vw
Sorry, but your link didnt work for me, but I now see in the "deciphered" link (above) that it appears you were attempting to point toward something to do with Martin PBM Mariner

Gotta love the aircraft of that era. We have nothing like them today. Kudos to the men and women who built and supported and piloted them.

And while the war was a horrific and unimaginable event, the post-war period up to maybe 1980 may have been Americas best for quality of life for the masses of middle class Americans. Not perfect by any means, but for me personally, far better than what we have today.

And I'll bet the only lanyards the PBM pilots had were attached to 1911's ;-)

Live Free or Die!

ATB
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-13-2021)
Old 04-07-2021, 10:33 AM   #36
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default Live free or Die it used to mean something

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
On December 20, 2019 the President signed the legislation raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21-years.

Seven months later, on July 29, 2020 Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1245 which increased the age from 19 to 21 to purchase, sell or possess tobacco products here In New Hampshire.

So, what will happen with the new federal safety lanyard law? I don't think Gov Sununu will see a need for it and will ignore it similar to how NH treats the federal seat belt law for cars. New Hampshire loses out on maybe 5-million dollars in federal highway funds every year by not having a seat belt law, and could also lose out on federal funding for boating and water safety by ignoring this new safety lanyard law.

We don't need the feds telling us to go wear a seat belt or go wear a motor boat lanyard ...... live free or die! .... bah humbug! ....

After all, it is the principal and not the money that really and truly matters! ..... live free or die! ... bah humbug! .... ... blah-blah-blah!
Why worry about Fed money, you dont really want to spend it. Then you might have to expand roads and docks, make the lakes region AND Winnipesaukee more accessible and useful to visitors.

Better to roll back funding and revert to wilderness. Ban houses from being withing a mile of lake, and put a fence around it with a gate only wide enough to carry a row boat through. Limit the number of row boats to 1 at a time.

No need to live free, you can become Taxichussetts North, add some excise taxes, income taxes, some sales tax. Make NH a sanctuary state and you folks can pay the tab for all the people that they can ship to live in your hotels. Maybe adopt some of Bloombergs ideas like bailing our convicted criminals to go vote, banning big gulps to ensure no one ever gets past a government mandated weight, spread your wealth to others, and so on. Isnt that much better than what you have today.

Its easy, just drink all the kool-aid the politicians and the media offer, and soon you will be mixing the kool-aid and serving it yourself.

Forget about Live free or Die,,, NH can become the next Bronx or Brockton or Watts.

Isnt that much better than actually adhering to the concept of Live free or Die,,,

Edit - addition; Just to be clear, please dont take any of this as in anger from me or hostile. This is just a forum, real life happens off the keyboard. And as opposed to some perspectives I LOVE visiting Winnipesaukee, and the various waterfront towns and hope to see people there with their boats and families and shopping and eating at Sawyers and such and enjoying themselves. And if I could, I would happily turn the clock back to 1960/70 something and the days of 20' runabouts with 2 cycle outboards or Jet drives with rooster-tails and above the waterline exhaust - and pinball arcades and so on. We are here now and must live with progress. But I dont have to agree with progress or like someone elses vision of a perfect Winnipesaukee. We all have our preferences and we all struggle to hang onto what we enjoy. Hopefully what we enjoy doesnt clash too much with someone elses preferences, and where it does, I hope we can find a way to avoid too much heartburn over it. Oh, and I dont like lanyards, but I dont oppose them being installed at the factory ;-) ATB

Last edited by XCR-700; 04-07-2021 at 12:38 PM. Reason: Enjoying the rant too much
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 12:49 PM   #37
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
On December 20, 2019 the President signed the legislation raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21-years.

Seven months later, on July 29, 2020 Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1245 which increased the age from 19 to 21 to purchase, sell or possess tobacco products here In New Hampshire.

So, what will happen with the new federal safety lanyard law? I don't think Gov Sununu will see a need for it and will ignore it similar to how NH treats the federal seat belt law for cars. New Hampshire loses out on maybe 5-million dollars in federal highway funds every year by not having a seat belt law, and could also lose out on federal funding for boating and water safety by ignoring this new safety lanyard law.

We don't need the feds telling us to go wear a seat belt or go wear a motor boat lanyard ...... live free or die! .... bah humbug! ....

After all, it is the principal and not the money that really and truly matters! ..... live free or die! ... bah humbug! .... ... blah-blah-blah!
I've been wearing a seat belt since the 80's... do you?
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 12:54 PM   #38
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700 View Post
Why worry about Fed money, you dont really want to spend it. Then you might have to expand roads and docks, make the lakes region AND Winnipesaukee more accessible and useful to visitors.

Better to roll back funding and revert to wilderness. Ban houses from being withing a mile of lake, and put a fence around it with a gate only wide enough to carry a row boat through. Limit the number of row boats to 1 at a time.

No need to live free, you can become Taxichussetts North, add some excise taxes, income taxes, some sales tax. Make NH a sanctuary state and you folks can pay the tab for all the people that they can ship to live in your hotels. Maybe adopt some of Bloombergs ideas like bailing our convicted criminals to go vote, banning big gulps to ensure no one ever gets past a government mandated weight, spread your wealth to others, and so on. Isnt that much better than what you have today.

Its easy, just drink all the kool-aid the politicians and the media offer, and soon you will be mixing the kool-aid and serving it yourself.

Forget about Live free or Die,,, NH can become the next Bronx or Brockton or Watts.

Isnt that much better than actually adhering to the concept of Live free or Die,,,

Edit - addition; Just to be clear, please dont take any of this as in anger from me or hostile. This is just a forum, real life happens off the keyboard. And as opposed to some perspectives I LOVE visiting Winnipesaukee, and the various waterfront towns and hope to see people there with their boats and families and shopping and eating at Sawyers and such and enjoying themselves. And if I could, I would happily turn the clock back to 1960/70 something and the days of 20' runabouts with 2 cycle outboards or Jet drives with rooster-tails and above the waterline exhaust - and pinball arcades and so on. We are here now and must live with progress. But I dont have to agree with progress or like someone elses vision of a perfect Winnipesaukee. We all have our preferences and we all struggle to hang onto what we enjoy. Hopefully what we enjoy doesnt clash too much with someone elses preferences, and where it does, I hope we can find a way to avoid too much heartburn over it. Oh, and I dont like lanyards, but I dont oppose them being installed at the factory ;-) ATB
I've lived in NH since 1959. Yesterday my wife and I took a ride to Gilford and was disgusted to see all the homes that are now on the sides of the mountains along the way. The whole area around the lake is being ruined from all the homes being built in areas that actually brought character to the region. Course most people in that area now don't know the difference.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to swnoel For This Useful Post:
stingray (04-07-2021)
Old 04-07-2021, 01:35 PM   #39
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,830
Thanks: 137
Thanked 517 Times in 320 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
I've been wearing a seat belt since the 80's... do you?
He wears foam noodles and ski belts.
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 01:54 PM   #40
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 5,365
Thanks: 1,679
Thanked 655 Times in 465 Posts
Default It's Called "Ridge Development"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
I've lived in NH since 1959. Yesterday my wife and I took a ride to Gilford and was disgusted to see all the homes that are now on the sides of the mountains along the way. The whole area around the lake is being ruined from all the homes being built in areas that actually brought character to the region. Course most people in that area now don't know the difference.
I'd seen this view-killing development first on a mountain lake in Switzerland 🇨🇭.

The erosive effects on shorelines can be invisible for years.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/no-...2819b4a19.html
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 02:12 PM   #41
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
I've lived in NH since 1959. Yesterday my wife and I took a ride to Gilford and was disgusted to see all the homes that are now on the sides of the mountains along the way. The whole area around the lake is being ruined from all the homes being built in areas that actually brought character to the region. Course most people in that area now don't know the difference.
As a citizen you and your fellow residents have the power to prevent or enable it.

You will benefit or suffer depending on what government services you want and how much you want to pay in taxes.

The choice is your, exercise it or someone else will.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 02:23 PM   #42
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
He wears foam noodles and ski belts.
Now thats funny,,, And would that be at the Weirs, in line for an ice cream, or in the privacy of his home,,, Scratch that,,, Too funny.

Pictures would be worth a mint.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2021, 09:52 AM   #43
MotorHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 280
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default Confused

Fay's news letter "AT THE HELM" says

(verbatim)
The recent passage of the amendment to 46 USC 4312 requires all operators of boats use/wear the boat's Engine Cut0-off switches (ECOS) when operating above headway.......

https://faysboatyard.com/fays-boatya...rd-newsletter/

I thought this new regulation was not applicable to the lakes.
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2021, 10:58 AM   #44
Bernie Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 57
Thanks: 135
Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Default Exceptions

Thanks for posting the newsletter.
Within that newsletter under the Exceptions section:

In NH, federal agencies can enforce this on the coastal waters and those under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. NH does not yet require mandatory ECOS wear. As a result, Marine Patrol Officers will not be enforcing this federal requirement.

Enjoy this beautiful day!
Bernie Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bernie Girl For This Useful Post:
MotorHead (04-10-2021)
Old 04-10-2021, 11:02 AM   #45
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 865
Thanked 1,113 Times in 698 Posts
Default Read it

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorHead View Post
Fay's news letter "AT THE HELM" says

(verbatim)
The recent passage of the amendment to 46 USC 4312 requires all operators of boats use/wear the boat's Engine Cut0-off switches (ECOS) when operating above headway.......

https://faysboatyard.com/fays-boatya...rd-newsletter/

I thought this new regulation was not applicable to the lakes.
Since you didn't read it, you are now qualified to be Commissioner of MLB
"NH does not yet require mandatory ECOS wear. As a result, Marine Patrol Officers will not be enforcing this federal requirement."
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
codeman671 (04-11-2021), MotorHead (04-10-2021)
Old 04-10-2021, 06:30 PM   #46
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,213
Thanks: 396
Thanked 1,670 Times in 671 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
I've lived in NH since 1959. Yesterday my wife and I took a ride to Gilford and was disgusted to see all the homes that are now on the sides of the mountains along the way. The whole area around the lake is being ruined from all the homes being built in areas that actually brought character to the region. Course most people in that area now don't know the difference.
I would agree that the view of the mountains, especially from out on the lake, was much nicer when it was all trees and no homes. The struggle is: What do you tell all the landowners who have built or wish to build on the mountainside?

If you were to enact legislation now to prevent any future development it would severely devalue the property it affected. I would think the the land owners would have a cause of action to recover the amount of the diminished value.

If a family held a mountainside plot of land for the last 100 years, intending to develop it at some point, how do you take their dream away?

I have no skin in the game but even if the majority was to want development curtailed I think it is too late to prevent future building on view lots.
TiltonBB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 09:19 AM   #47
Cal Coon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 470
Thanks: 178
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
Since you didn't read it, you are now qualified to be Commissioner of MLB
"NH does not yet require mandatory ECOS wear. As a result, Marine Patrol Officers will not be enforcing this federal requirement."
Don't forget "Speaker of the House". Not only do you not have to read a bill, you actually have to pass it to find out what's in it.
Cal Coon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 11:23 AM   #48
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 622
Thanks: 4
Thanked 198 Times in 125 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
I would agree that the view of the mountains, especially from out on the lake, was much nicer when it was all trees and no homes. The struggle is: What do you tell all the landowners who have built or wish to build on the mountainside?
I've always thought that the ideal lake house is one with a great view of the lake but can't be seen from the lake. The same can be said of a mountainside home. This is impossible to achieve totally, but there are some things that can be done to have a good compromise. I for one had no wish to build a monument to myself for others to see.
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 04:05 PM   #49
Cal Coon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 470
Thanks: 178
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

I would definitely prefer to see (and keep) the natural landscape mother nature provided, however, I would rather see a FEW houses, than windmills. JMHO
Cal Coon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 05:14 PM   #50
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Are you suggesting a new law would solve a problem?
No just the opposite I see this new law as causing more injuries. I'd love to see the statistics on the number of boating accidents that occur on an annual basis where it has been determined that use of a cutoff would have prevented them. It seems as though every time I read of an accident, it is always the same combination of reasons, inexperience, operating outside safe parameters for the conditions or congestion, operating under the influence or some other operator error. I've never gotten the impression that the majority would have been avoided with a safety lanyard in use.

I guess it just begs the question what's the intended purpose of this cause I don't see it. I do however see having an engine cut out unexpectedly being a huge safety problem. It doesn't take much for them to pop out and flip the switch.

I sometimes wonder who thinks this stuff up. It seems that every time something tragic happens the knee jerk reaction is to pass some new law.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Top-Water (04-12-2021)
Old 04-11-2021, 06:12 PM   #51
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
On December 20, 2019 the President signed the legislation raising the federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21-years.

Seven months later, on July 29, 2020 Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1245 which increased the age from 19 to 21 to purchase, sell or possess tobacco products here In New Hampshire.

So, what will happen with the new federal safety lanyard law? I don't think the NH house or senate majority will see a need for it and will ignore it similar to how NH treats the federal seat belt law for cars. New Hampshire loses out on maybe 5-million dollars in federal highway funds every year by not having a seat belt law, and could also lose out on federal funding for boating and water safety by ignoring this new safety lanyard law.

We don't need the feds telling us to go wear a seat belt or go wear a motor boat lanyard ...... live free or die! .... bah humbug! ....

After all, it is the principal and not the money that really and truly matters! ..... live free or die! ... bah humbug! .... ... blah-blah-blah!

If you want to complain about the lack of a seat belt law let's not forget about all the democrats that had years to do something and did nothing. Funny how you just conveniently forget about that. Love the selective outrage.

You may want to take a basic civics lesson on the difference between federal and state law. If a federal law is passed it is effective in all 50 states and supersedes state law. There is no such thing as a federal law that is passed then the states decide if they like it or not - it doesn't work that way. There is NO federal seat belt law that requires use, the only federal law on the subject was passed in the late 60's that requires all vehicles to be manufactured with them. Any mandatory use laws are set at the state level. The feds have tied a consolation prize of access to strings attached federal funding if they happen to have a mandatory seat belt law in place. It's NOT free money to be spent on whatever and however the state wants to.

Far as the lanyard law goes, again FEDERAL law, state has no say in this, it is only applicable to federally regulated waterways under USCG jurisdiction.

The lake is not federally regulated thus it is not applicable here.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Top-Water (04-11-2021)
Old 04-11-2021, 06:51 PM   #52
salty dog
Senior Member
 
salty dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Beverly Cove, Ma
Posts: 353
Thanks: 280
Thanked 147 Times in 81 Posts
Default Remote cut-off

I bought one of these a few years back. I must say it's very handy; it's nice not having to wear the lanyard. If I happen to go overboard, the engine cuts. It has about a 60-foot range when it will also trip. To some degree they were problematic plus they were expensive. That combination plus limited funds and low sales volume equaled a very short production period before they went out of business. Now FELL Marine offers one, however, it needs to be hard-wired to the ignition.
Attached Images
 
__________________
I'd rather be relax'n at Winnipesaukee
salty dog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to salty dog For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (04-11-2021)
Old 04-11-2021, 07:04 PM   #53
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 5,365
Thanks: 1,679
Thanked 655 Times in 465 Posts
Cool Got a Lanyard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
No just the opposite I see this new law as causing more injuries. I'd love to see the statistics on the number of boating accidents that occur on an annual basis where it has been determined that use of a cutoff would have prevented them. It seems as though every time I read of an accident, it is always the same combination of reasons, inexperience, operating outside safe parameters for the conditions or congestion, operating under the influence or some other operator error. I've never gotten the impression that the majority would have been avoided with a safety lanyard in use.

I guess it just begs the question what's the intended purpose of this cause I don't see it. I do however see having an engine cut out unexpectedly being a huge safety problem. It doesn't take much for them to pop out and flip the switch.

I sometimes wonder who thinks this stuff up. It seems that every time something tragic happens the knee jerk reaction is to pass some new law.
A lanyard is mentioned in a double-ejection in sight of my dock!

Quote:
The only thing the operator did wrong was not use his safety lanyard (kill switch). He shouldn't be crucified for it!

Woodsy
Not the first time on Lake Winnipesaukee that a worn lanyard would save the day.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 08:07 PM   #54
XCR-700
Senior Member
 
XCR-700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 564
Thanked 377 Times in 233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by salty dog View Post
I bought one of these a few years back. I must say it's very handy; it's nice not having to wear the lanyard. If I happen to go overboard, the engine cuts. It has about a 60-foot range when it will also trip. To some degree they were problematic plus they were expensive. That combination plus limited funds and low sales volume equaled a very short production period before they went out of business. Now FELL Marine offers one, however, it needs to be hard-wired to the ignition.
While it may not be required on Winnipesaukee, for those who want it, this looks like a interesting product.

I have not seen anything like this and always find it interesting to learn of new technology even if I dont desire it myself.

Thanks!

Last edited by XCR-700; 04-11-2021 at 09:58 PM.
XCR-700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 08:37 PM   #55
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

Could Gov Chris Sununu issue an executive order giving the Marine Patrol discretion to enforce this new federal wear-your-boat-lanyard rule or would it require a new state law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2021, 11:42 PM   #56
P-3 Guy
Senior Member
 
P-3 Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Under the former KNHZ bounce pattern
Posts: 448
Thanks: 3
Thanked 187 Times in 99 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
There is NO federal seat belt law that requires use, the only federal law on the subject was passed in the late 60's that requires all vehicles to be manufactured with them. Any mandatory use laws are set at the state level. The feds have tied a consolation prize of access to strings attached federal funding if they happen to have a mandatory seat belt law in place. It's NOT free money to be spent on whatever and however the state wants to.
Federal regulations require that seat belts be worn by the driver and any passengers in large commercial trucks operated on public roads in interstate commerce.
P-3 Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2021, 05:23 AM   #57
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,564
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 244
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
Default

In NH the state police and all local police will cite a truck driver for not wearing their seat belt and a seat belt violation costs about $125 and stays on their driving history record for a long 15-years time.

So, until the Governor issues an executive order, for now the Marine Patrol has discretion to cite a 20-year old boat driver for possession of tobacco but not for NOT wearing the safety lanyard. This seems like a very unusual law enforcement situation?

So, having a single cigarette in your pocket IS a violation.

Driving a 16' aluminum Alumacraft with a 60-hp two-stroke outboard at 40-mph while NOT wearing the safety lanyard is NOT a violation. If the boat hits a wake or something and the driver gets bounced away from the steering wheel and throttle, the boat will continue to go places at 40-mph with no one at the steering/speed controls.
__________________
.... suffering killer, terrible terminal tinnitus!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 04-12-2021 at 06:44 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2021, 09:45 AM   #58
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Could Gov Chris Sununu issue an executive order giving the Marine Patrol discretion to enforce this new federal wear-your-boat-lanyard rule or would it require a new state law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor?
No he cannot, and federal law is not applicable to waterways that are not federally controlled. What could happen is the state legislature could introduce a bill that adopts in part or in whole the language of the federal law as a NH statue\law and put it up for a vote. If passed, only then is it up to the Governor to sign it into law.

The use of executive orders are not intended to circumvent the legislature and take legislative action. Obviously there are under extreme circumstances some aspects of emergency power that come into play but that is an entirely different subject not applicable here. Executive orders have been abused as of late to the point where the intended purpose of executive action and the constitutional limitations placed on them has strayed well beyond it's purpose. The governor and for that matter the President are not absolute rulers otherwise there would be no reason to have a legislature in the first place.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-12-2021), CooperS7777 (04-12-2021)
Old 04-12-2021, 09:51 AM   #59
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 441
Thanks: 73
Thanked 157 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
No just the opposite I see this new law as causing more injuries. I'd love to see the statistics on the number of boating accidents that occur on an annual basis where it has been determined that use of a cutoff would have prevented them. It seems as though every time I read of an accident, it is always the same combination of reasons, inexperience, operating outside safe parameters for the conditions or congestion, operating under the influence or some other operator error. I've never gotten the impression that the majority would have been avoided with a safety lanyard in use.

I guess it just begs the question what's the intended purpose of this cause I don't see it. I do however see having an engine cut out unexpectedly being a huge safety problem. It doesn't take much for them to pop out and flip the switch.

I sometimes wonder who thinks this stuff up. It seems that every time something tragic happens the knee jerk reaction is to pass some new law.
Can't disagree with your statement...
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2021, 09:51 AM   #60
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,722
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,901 Times in 791 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-3 Guy View Post
Federal regulations require that seat belts be worn by the driver and any passengers in large commercial trucks operated on public roads in interstate commerce.
Yeah true, but what was reference here was specifically use in passenger cars which does have federal funding tied to it.

The commercial world is completely different.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2021, 11:35 AM   #61
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 865
Thanked 1,113 Times in 698 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-3 Guy View Post
Federal regulations require that seat belts be worn by the driver and any passengers in large commercial trucks operated on public roads in interstate commerce.
Sent you a PM
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2021, 02:37 PM   #62
MotorHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 280
Thanks: 53
Thanked 84 Times in 63 Posts
Default

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/0...e-orig-vpx.cnn
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.87978 seconds