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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2005, 11:22 AM   #1
PROPELLER
Senior Member
 
PROPELLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 340
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Speed Limit

I am surprised there has not been any chatter regarding the proposed speed limit for Winni. The bill is listed on the NH General Court website, HB 162, sponsored by Rep Piliod from Belmont. It proposes a daytime speed limit of 45 mph & a nightime speed limit of 25mph.
PROPELLER is offline  
Old 01-11-2005, 11:59 AM   #2
Island Girl
Senior Member
 
Island Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,325
Thanks: 16
Thanked 496 Times in 167 Posts
Default Public Hearings?

Will there be any public hearings, committee meetings, etc for the public to give an opinion?
__________________
Island Girl

....... Make Lemonade
Island Girl is offline  
Old 01-11-2005, 12:29 PM   #3
Fat Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

They say the best thing to do is just start some dialogue about the matter on this forum. The legislators will be watching to get a feel for public opinion on the subject. Posting an opinion here is probably more valuable than writing a letter to your rep.
Fat Jack is offline  
Old 01-11-2005, 01:52 PM   #4
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,653
Thanks: 208
Thanked 528 Times in 323 Posts
Default

Speed limits on the open water are rather silly in my opinion. There are plenty of places one would never go 45 MPH on the lake even if the law said it was OK to do so and there are plenty of places one could exceed 45 in a perfectly safe manner. I doubt a speed limit would make the lake safer than it is now. It would just give the Marine Patrol something else to concentrate on rather than trying to keep people safe.

It would also be quite tricky to accurately measure speed using handheld radar due to the way Doppler radar works and the fact that the vector of one boat relative to another, unlike a highway, is utterly random on the water.
Dave R is offline  
Old 01-11-2005, 06:06 PM   #5
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Ah , government at work...protecting us from ourselves
So now we who own "offshores" that can no longer go over 45(legally) can trade up to cruisers that kick up 3 and 4 foot wakes at 35 mph and be perfectly legal in most areas
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 01-11-2005, 07:19 PM   #6
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,478
Thanks: 278
Thanked 457 Times in 201 Posts
Thumbs down We don't need the speed limit

I agree with the previous posting. 45 is way too fast in many situations, but on a sunny Tuesday, in mid-May, at 9AM, in the broads (and lots of other times and places) - there is no reason not to do 60+. So, 45 is an artificial number that is both too fast and too slow. A night time speed limit of 25 is not right either. Again, 25 is way too fast for some areas, but coming north from Wolfeboro in the broads, 25 can be too slow. In fact, some boats will plane bow high at 25, and conforming to the law would actually make visibility worse - and reduce safety. The laws should re-enforce a boater's responsibility to go a reasonable and proper speed at all times. Heck, the state is making everyone take a course in how to drive a boat - part of the course should be to recognize when its time to go fast, and when its time to go slow. I fear that this is feel-good legislation that gives the appearance of the warm blanket of safety, but does nothing except to encourage disrespect for the law.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 01-11-2005, 09:51 PM   #7
itchin for fishin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 103
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

I think the real purpose of the limit would be to chase the go boats off the lake and to the ocean. Dave and Geezer have hit it on the head, cruising even 35 or 40 say by an Eagle island on a busy day is dangerous. Most boaters do not have the skills to react quick enough.

The question that begs is it the speed or the number of boats that make the lake more dangerous? It really is a bit a both. If you chase away some boats that live for speed, that probably would drop the number of boats and speed and potentially make it safer. Who knows. Just a guess on the logic.
itchin for fishin is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 07:44 AM   #8
Jan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 36
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Before bashing anyone who even mentions speed limits it may be helpful to look at Lake George. They have a 45 mph speed limit. I'm sure there was a heated debate there but the speed limit advocates prevailed. Why? Couldn't the same reasons for putting a speed limit on Lake George apply to Lake Winni?

I'm not necessarily for a speed limit here but I think it would be nice to have a rational exchange of ideas about this instead of the usual hysteria from the performance boat owners. Is that possible on this forum?

So what about Lake George? If they passed a 45 mph speed limit there why not here?
Jan is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 08:46 AM   #9
itchin for fishin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 103
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Here Here Jan! I think that would be great. I would love to have a better understanding of why people oppose the limit. Is it just our natural desire for freedom, is it the feeling of going fast? I know myself, I could live with a limit. I'm one of those who doesn't ride faster than 45. My reason is when I'm on the lake, I want to really relax. With higher speeds, you do need to "work" a little more piloting as things as situations come up on you much faster. So that's my reason for not opposing it. However, I will fully respect those who do oppose the limit and would like to better understand their perspective.
itchin for fishin is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:02 AM   #10
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,653
Thanks: 208
Thanked 528 Times in 323 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan

So what about Lake George? If they passed a 45 mph speed limit there why not here?
Specifically for the reasons mentioned above, but also doing something just because NY does it, seems like a terrible reason to do something in NH.

There are already laws in place that govern boating, and common sense nicely covers any other aspects of the pasttime. If people obeyed the existing laws and used common sense, there would be no accidents. Maybe we need to punish folks for not using common sense rather than those that go fast where it's safe to do so... How about fines for running up on the Witches? You just know that anyone that would do that would be quite likely to do other dumb things.

Our society seems comfortable with punishing those who are perceived to be unsafe and having pity on those that do something really dumb. You see police issuing speeding tickets to automobile drivers all the time based on that notion that speed may lead to an accident, but they rarely write tickets after someone proves beyond all doubt that they were driving in an unsafe manner by actually having an accident.

I think we need to ask ourselves "why do we need a speed limit?", not "why not have one?"...
Dave R is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:16 AM   #11
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,653
Thanks: 208
Thanked 528 Times in 323 Posts
Default

I feel compelled to point out the fact that my boat will barely break 45 MPH and I rarely go more than 35. I'm just opposed to redundant and useless laws in general.
Dave R is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:20 AM   #12
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,982
Thanks: 188
Thanked 448 Times in 328 Posts
Cool nitey night!

I see boats out cruising at night and in the dark at speeds of 30-40 mph and assume they use a global positioning system to assist their normal eyeball vision for steering. The technology of gps has created a new boating venue on Winnipeaukee enabling boaters to cruise along up on plane in the night. With a lot less boat traffic out there at night, it's a good time to be out on the water and the stunning surroundings take on a whole new look.....night-time. Even a small rowboat w/ a two horse outboard is supposed to have the required red-green-white lights for the night and it can always be seen by an 8000lb-500hp 31' Baha Bandit that is night cruising up on plane at speeds of 30mph and faster. Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:51 AM   #13
JG1222
Senior Member
 
JG1222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pelham, NH
Posts: 345
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Ben Franklin to the Rescue

Quote:
Originally Posted by itchin for fishin
I would love to have a better understanding of why people oppose the limit. Is it just our natural desire for freedom, is it the feeling of going fast? I know myself, I could live with a limit.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "He who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security will get neither and deserve neither."

In my humble opinion, if the safe boating laws that we already have were merely enforced more effectively, there would be no need for additional ones. Unfortunately, I fear that the state would see a speed limit as another valuable revenue stream - the added "safety" would just be a nice bonus.

Last edited by JG1222; 01-12-2005 at 09:54 AM.
JG1222 is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 10:36 AM   #14
rickstr66
Senior Member
 
rickstr66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Let me start out by saying I have a boat that will do well over 45mph and I often do go over 45mph. In fact most times im doing over 45 mph.

Now onto my point. Using physics, you can determine that a boat weighing X and going X mph will take X amount of time and feet to come to a stop. If the X in mph is reduced then the distance and time it takes to stop a boat will decrease. This will undoubtablly reduce the # of accidents that happen when a boat is initailly going over 45mph. Im not saying im for a speed limit here but scientifically speaking speed limits reduce not only the # of accidents but also the severity of them.

As long as the Marine Patrol use common scense and arn't over the top with this, a speed limit will work fine. I dont think I have ever been pulled over and given a ticket unless I was going more then 10mph over the posted speed limit. If the Marine patrol use this same logic and only pull those over who are operating dangerously over the 45 mph limit, there wont be a problem
rickstr66 is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 12:14 PM   #15
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Just curious...

Why do "the few" have to rule "the many" in this country and state?

Pass your speed limit; but remember that life is choices and challenges.

The "wake" will make you think twice.

Unfortunately, it will be too late - your speed limit law will be a fact of life.

The upside is that "big boat" sales will increase because people with boats of less than 30 feet in length will not be able to enjoy a ride on the Lake.

Also, unfortunately, shorefront property owners will be observing the legal erosion of their assets.

Remember, the rule states 150 feet away.

Also, take a wild guess as to why the Lake has experienced a "no-wake" limit.

Perhaps, just perhaps, that is what is really needed to keep "the few" happy and content.

Just my opinion; yours may differ...

P.S.- Let us not forget Castle in the Clouds, the LRCT, and snowmobiles.
GWC... is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 03:56 PM   #16
lakershaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rattlesnake Isl. - Simsbury, CT
Posts: 230
Thanks: 51
Thanked 35 Times in 18 Posts
Default My 2 cents

I think you could argue both sides of this issue using logic, and the speed limit may not be the best solution to the problems that prompt it as a solution. As others have said on this thread, there are already a number of laws on the books that cover the problems sometimes created by speed. On a busy Saturday afternoon, it would never be prudent to go 40mph through FL2 and Eagle Island, but other times speed of 60 may be safe at other points on the lake.

The reckless nature of boaters who either are not paying attention to their fellow boaters or truly don't have a clue is what I see as the big problem. I would prefer to see NHMP be stricter with enforcing reckless operation violations than be forced to sit and run radar. Reckless operation is already on the books, has stiffer penalties than a simple safe passage violation or a speed violation would have, and I think it better addresses the unique issues of boating safety. In the Saturday afternoon scenario, I would argue that someone threading the needle in heavy boat traffic by light 2 at 40MPH would be operating recklessly, but putting in a 45MPH speed limit would in effect give the operator prima facia evidence for a reasonable defense. IMO, if Marine Patrol were to start handing out tickets that forced the operators to appear in court and explain to the Judge what they were doing, it would go a long way to improving the safety on the water. I think these problems boil down to a lack of common sense, which is impossible to legislate. But forcing someone to explain their actions to the Judge could go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Finally, putting in a speed limit may actually have the effect of generating higher speeds on the lake. Like others have said, many boaters don't go faster than 35 or so. But how many cars on the road travel below the speed limit? You may actually see inexperienced boaters thinking they need to be going 45, when for them 30 is much safer.
lakershaker is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 04:06 PM   #17
Tyler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Thanks: 16
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default Contact info

Can anyone provide contact info for Pilliod Belk who is the sponsor of this House Bill? Thanks.
Tyler is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 04:34 PM   #18
Tyler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Thanks: 16
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default Boater education

I thought the mandatory boater education was the answer to the boating problems on Winni. Was/is this just feel good, apple pie and motherhood legislation? Has anyone asked Mr. Belk why he thinks this HB 162 bill is necessary and if so for him to provide data to support it? Seems like we are putting the cart before the horse.
Tyler is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 04:56 PM   #19
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakershaker
In the Saturday afternoon scenario, I would argue that someone threading the needle in heavy boat traffic by light 2 at 40MPH would be operating recklessly, but putting in a 45MPH speed limit would in effect give the operator prima facia evidence for a reasonable defense.
If the traffic is that heavy shouldn't the 150' take effect and reduce the need for ANY speed limit
My boat's capable of well over 45 but most of the time going from Weirs beach to Wolfeboro or Alton Bay I run 2700to 3000 rpms and that gets me 45/50 mph , a very comfortable cruising speed for a boat my size. Most of my higher speeds are to race the sun down when returning home late or as a thunderstorm approaches. Now a speed limit would make me a criminal as well as many others who , I know , have done the same thing .
There's already laws in place to address the "unsafe" issues and apparently it's hard enough to keep track of these now.
To me it's , more government and one less freedom , more than anything else
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 06:42 PM   #20
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,663
Thanks: 21
Thanked 353 Times in 164 Posts
Default

I would rather see a horsepower limit than a speed limit. But I welcome a speed limit.

This argument that speed limits don't work and are not enforceable does not hold water. Many lakes, including NH lakes, have speed and horsepower limits and they work great.

At some point we need to tell people that this is a lake and not the ocean. Boats that have extreme speed, noise and wake should not be operated 150 feet from shore.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 08:45 PM   #21
overlook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gilford
Posts: 57
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Athis lake I do not recall anytime that horsepower was found to be at blame for a boating accident, or that a speed of over 45 mph involved two boats in an accident. The current laws are quite sufficent. Ilove to sail but I also feel quit comfortable cruising over a 100mph.
overlook is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 09:02 PM   #22
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,663
Thanks: 21
Thanked 353 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Why assume this is just about boating safety?

It's also about erosion, excessive wake, noise pollution, water pollution, Loon nests, dock damage, swamped canoes, and a small child standing in 2 feet of water and being slammed into the rocks by the wake of a Carver that belongs in the Atlantic.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-12-2005, 11:29 PM   #23
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wink Just curious, some more...

If this is about "erosion, excessive wake, ..., Loon nests, dock damage, swamped canoes, and a small child standing in 2 feet of water and being slammed into the rocks by the wake of a .... that belongs in the Atlantic",
then, where does this leave the Mount, the Sophie C, and the Doris E?

Surely you do not wish for their retirement?!?
GWC... is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 12:00 AM   #24
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,663
Thanks: 21
Thanked 353 Times in 164 Posts
Default

The Sophie and the Mount pass close to my place every day. The wake they put out is large. But the wake of performance boats and cabin cruisers is much worse.

This idea that the tour boats have the biggest wake just is not true. Plus there are only a few of them and they are operated by responsible professionals that know how to minimize their negative effects.

And tour boats provide lake access to tens of thousands that wouldn't have it otherwise. That's a fair trade for the minor inconvenience they create.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 07:08 AM   #25
lakershaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rattlesnake Isl. - Simsbury, CT
Posts: 230
Thanks: 51
Thanked 35 Times in 18 Posts
Default Why focus on speed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Why assume this is just about boating safety?

It's also about erosion, excessive wake, noise pollution, water pollution, Loon nests, dock damage, swamped canoes, and a small child standing in 2 feet of water and being slammed into the rocks by the wake of a Carver that belongs in the Atlantic.
Unfortunately, a speed limit won't solve most of these problems. I agree that there are many boats inappropriate for the lake being operated here, but putting in a speed limit won't help the issue of the giant Carver swamping canoes and endangering children- it can't go 45 anyway. And the offshore boats have smaller wakes when they are on plane than when they are bow up at slower speeds. I think having a speed limit would just be another unnecessary law that doesn't properly address the true underlying issues. I would much rather see a moratorium on large displacement craft.

Last edited by lakershaker; 01-13-2005 at 07:11 AM.
lakershaker is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 08:25 AM   #26
Island Girl
Senior Member
 
Island Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,325
Thanks: 16
Thanked 496 Times in 167 Posts
Default Write to all of them

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/email.asp
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/w...smyresults.asp
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/whosmyleg/

Can't find Belk, just James Pilliod.
__________________
Island Girl

....... Make Lemonade
Island Girl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:30 AM   #27
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,287
Thanks: 328
Thanked 419 Times in 243 Posts
Default "Live Free or Die"

Let's enact more laws, everyone knows more regulation is better. Why 45 mph why not 30 or even 65? Why, because it is a number pulled out of someone's "head". Does Belmont even border the lake? I have a boat that will go 55 to 60 and sometimes I go that fast. Sometimes I am passed by boats going even faster. Every "irritation", I can't even call them close calls, I've experienced is at slower speeds caused by other boats travelling at slower speeds. I was able to correct the problem by slowing, stopping or changing course.

The speed limit is a joke, requested by people who think they are smarter than the rest. They think with their emotion rather than their brains. Most of the issues listed here (erosion, large wakes, bad behavior) will not be solved by a speed limit. Once again, if a careful thoughtful study was done, the Representative would find a speed limit is not necessary. Unfortunately some of our Representatives are not the brightest bulbs in the circuit.
ITD is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:37 AM   #28
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

I agree with you ITD , but it's hard to reason with people who want speed limits , even if only for their own selfish reasons. How do you make sense of the need to go fast. Just like the noise issue...there's no arguing for noise , only against it.Our government has reached a point , where if three people complain , they will change a law or make a new one regardless of what the other 4,346,328,210 people want
Some people would rather live in the 50's or 60's , granted it was a great time , but there's just no going back
I just finished a 14 hour shift and the ol' bulb's getting pretty dim , so I'm gonna hit the sack
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

Last edited by Cal; 01-13-2005 at 11:51 PM.
Cal is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 12:36 PM   #29
Sally
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH and W. Newbury, MA
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default answer for Tyler

The sponsor of this bill is Rep. James Pilliod from Belmont. (The Belk you were refering to is an abbreviation for Belknap County, which he represents.)

His contact info is:

504 Province Rd, Belmont, NH 03220-5379
Sally is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 05:25 PM   #30
JDeere
Senior Member
 
JDeere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 295
Thanks: 74
Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts
Default Slower is Better!!!!!

Funny how the same old folks bring up the same old argument about laws. Seems that the consistent thought is more laws are bad because there are A) enough laws on the books and B) you cannot enforce the new law. Based on that argument the government should not enact new legislation as society and technology changes. The issue of fast, ocean going boats on the lake was not an issue years ago because the problem did not exist. Today is different than it was years ago and society needs to amend laws to deal with the new reality.


The lake is without argument overcrowded and dangerous on any given summer weekend. There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH. Where is anyone going that they need the extra speed? The speed is not about traveling to a destination it is about the thrill. IMHO!


Anyone can (and will) raise the argument that they have had problems with slow moving boats but statistically speed is a factor in any type of accident. Boater education cannot hurt but drivers’ education produces more than a few lunatics on the road. I understand that those lunatics on the road are probably breaking the law but at least there is a way to deal with them through legal remedies.


Anyway, slower is safer and more friendly to the lake and those that live, weekend, summer, fish, swim, wade, canoe etc. on it!
JDeere is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:52 AM   #31
overlook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gilford
Posts: 57
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

The safest thing to do is that no one use the lake, just look at it. Canoes are dangerous ( most deaths are attributed to capsising and fishing). No swimming that way no one will drown and contribute to bacteria. No powerboats so ther is no pollution or eroson ( but when you drive your car you might crash or pollute) maybe we can take it to the next step and rid all water fowl ( that means Loons too)

You cannot argue a speed limit without prejugdest!
overlook is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:58 AM   #32
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,229
Thanks: 794
Thanked 394 Times in 282 Posts
Arrow Excess IS the problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
"...Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?"
Yes there was. It occurred four days after my letter-to-the-editor appeared in the Granite State News. The letter was titled "Anarchy on Winnipesaukee". Both parties could have read it.

Afterwards, this Forum "lost" at least one poster's user-name that contained the word "Baja".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R
"...Specifically for the reasons mentioned above, but also doing something just because NY does it, seems like a terrible reason to do something in NH..."
The boats targeted are very mobile. If NY restricts them to 45 MPH, they just trailer to the nearest big lake that permits their excesses. (Oceans are dirty and might smudge their graphics).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Jack
"They say the best thing to do is just start some dialogue about the matter on this forum..."
More importantly is that newspapers read here and archive the quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R
"I doubt a speed limit would make the lake safer than it is now."
You may be right. If you've visited these Big Boater websites, you'll see a disdain for regulation. (Some would call it arrogance). Boats that can exceed 45 MPH will choose "not to see" the MPs with their light flashing and sirens blaring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakershaker
I agree that there are many boats inappropriate for the lake being operated here, but putting in a speed limit won't help the issue of the giant Carver swamping canoes and endangering children- it can't go 45 anyway.
Giant Carvers need to be hit in the wallet with ultra-big-time registration fees. "A cheap way to get Lakefront" isn't helping the Lake any, but it could fund Enforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakershaker
"...And the offshore boats have smaller wakes when they are on plane than when they are bow up at slower speeds...."
'Wonder why the "Big Boater" didn't use that among the defense arguments. (That the Big Boater didn't see the smaller boat's stern light because, "bow-up" he couldn't see over his own bow).

The Big Boater could have sued Baja for design insufficiencies, and "beat the rap".
Quote:
"...I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "He who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security will get neither and deserve neither."
Ben wrote "essential freedoms". Excess is not an essential freedom.
ApS is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 10:06 AM   #33
rickstr66
Senior Member
 
rickstr66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default The Number of accidents

Can anyone find out the exact number of accidents involving 2 or more boats on Winni last year, and for that matter the last several years.I have no idea where to get that info. For all this talk of over crowdedness (is that a word lol?) im guessing the number is relitivly low. Im willing to guess most accidents involving 2 or more boats happen at speeds much lower then the proposed 45mph. Its not speed thats the main factor.. its boaters that dont have a clue on how to run a boat properly. Distraction in my opinion is the #1 cause of boating accidents. All this argument about what people precieve as "ocean going boats".. Who says they are only for the ocean??? When you buy one does it say..... only use in the ocean? ( I dont own an "ocean going boat"). One poster wants to impliment a horse power restriction. Why ? What will that accomplish? A 15' boat with a 90hp motor will go just as fast as a 20' with a 150hp or a 30' with a 250hp
rickstr66 is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 10:33 AM   #34
frank m.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDeere
There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH.
John, Don't waste your breath here. "Rationality" has no place in this string. This string is just for people who either own or profit from monster boats or who like to disagree. Canoes and loons? Luckily, few of these people live up here, vote up here, or have any serious influence. In time, those of us who do not own forty footers will be able to use the lake again.
frank m. is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 12:22 PM   #35
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 834
Thanks: 287
Thanked 454 Times in 170 Posts
Thumbs down The tide is turning in NH

I moved up from Massachusetts several years ago in order to get away from the liberalism that's prevalent there. It's that attitude that the government knows what's best for us that was not present in the "Live Free or Die state, which caused me to leave Mass. However, I fear that the influx of Mass residents that came here possibly to escape the liberalism is changing NH forever. Once here, I think they fall into old habits and look toward the government for direction, guidance and rules in their lives. I think a perfect example is the fact that NH voted for Kerry in the election. How much more liberal can you get? I think the idea of a speed limit on the lake is rediculous and will just be the start of more rules and less freedom. Marine Patrol does not have the resources to enforce the rules as they stand, so what makes everyone think that enacting a new speed limit will save us from ourselves? The need to enforce the rules that are in place now.
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 12:46 PM   #36
Fat Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

WP,
Seems an interesting switch to take the side of the jet-setters and act as if you are speaking for us old-time locals. Especially when, by virtue of being a recent transplant to this state, you have no basis for representing us. Ninety-nine percent of these performance boats are owned by out-of-staters (no, I don't have evidence of that). It's the locals and old-timers who are having the lake taken away from us in recent years. Claiming that our desire to start using the lake again is somehow being "liberal" and implying that it is these rich kids with the speed boats who represent the traditional conservative values of this state is a real stretch. Excessive goverment happens when the things we own are taken away from us by new laws and regulations, not when they are given back by trying to keep things the way they alwasy have been. Asking our elected representatives to protect us from this recent influx of out-of-state values is not in conflict with traditional NH values, it is right in line with them.
Fat Jack is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 03:28 PM   #37
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default No Right

You talk about rights, but there is no RIGHT to operate any size boat at any speed on a NH lake, anymore then there is a right to operate any vehicle at any speed on NH highways.

We are a society of laws, and if the majority want a speed or horse power limit on the lake then that is what they will have.

Enforcement is not the issue. Safety is not the issue. Majority rule is the issue.

Things are getting out of hand on the lake and the majority want a change. If you think the majority want more big loud boats on the lake then you are out of touch with the community.

This law or one like it WILL pass. Perhaps not this year or the next but if you think the status will remain quo then you have your head in the sand.

Next time you paint your boats use salt resistant paint.
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 03:51 PM   #38
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 834
Thanks: 287
Thanked 454 Times in 170 Posts
Angry Hearing is next week

The hearing for this bill is next Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 am in Room 305 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. I'll be there in support of NO SPEED LIMIT . We need more help, so if you are against this please try to show up and stand up for your RIGHTS!
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 03:59 PM   #39
Tyler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Thanks: 16
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default I will be there

Thanks for the info SeaPlane Pilot. This will never pass. To bad we have to go through this every year.
Tyler is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:02 PM   #40
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,287
Thanks: 328
Thanked 419 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Please direct me to the poll or study that says the majority wants a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, I'll bet you'll find it at the same place as the majority that wanted rigime change in the US, NOWHERE. Once again, a speed limit won't solve any of the complaints listed in this forum.

Remove "Washington's" in the quote below and I'm afraid you'll begin to see NH direction..... I hope I'm wrong.........

"Sadly, commitment to principle has been missing in Washington's politics for quite some time now. Ronald Reagan's summary of how the government thinks -- 'If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' -- remains very much alive today." --The Heritage Foundation's Ed Feulner
ITD is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:27 PM   #41
phoenix
Senior Member
 
phoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,086
Thanks: 12
Thanked 137 Times in 97 Posts
Default

should we also get rid of all speed limits on roads. it seems that some limit is logical . Maybe the debate should be about the number not whether we should have any rules
phoenix is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:27 PM   #42
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

ITD

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3.
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 04:29 PM   #43
Tyler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 112
Thanks: 16
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default There is no poll/data ITD

that supports this. Unfortunately we go through this every year. This will never pass and those who want it know it. It is simple feel good legislation wishfull thinking.

As I said earlier I thought the mandatory boater education was supposed to help this situation. Was that just another feel good bill that was passed???
Tyler is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:06 PM   #44
PaulS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default All we want is courtesy

I think the only thing that most people can agree on is that we want courtesy. The best way to get that, is to give it. A 20' runabout going 30 mph past someone in a canoe fishing on a quiet morning, even at 150', is going to be more annoying than a cigarette boat going 70 mph across the broads with no one else in site. Regardless of the boat type: jetski, cruiser, kayak, runabout, or "offshore", each can be driven in a way to not bother others, or with total disregard for anyone and everyone. After about 5 posts, these threads get pretty damned repetative, with not much new information added. A little courtesy goes a long way. Climbing off my soapbox now...
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:52 PM   #45
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,598
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

With all the discussion pro and con here is my 2 cents.

A speed limit may have some and I say some merit but is it the only answer?

With the various threads on "Go Fast", Off Shore, Ocean Boats, Large Cruisers etc have we forgotten that the PWC can achieve speeds in excess of 60 MPH? So it is not the size or HP of the boat that can get up an go like H--- across any body of water.

My current boat cannot make it to 45MPH. When I bought a previous new boat back in 93 I declined the larger engine because I "gave up drag racing". But that was a personal choice. Don't get me wrong I like speed but there is a time and place for it. That is what NASCAR provides for car enthusiasts at NHIS and other smaller tracks around New England. Is the lake an open race track? Some believe that is the case so we are seeing a way to control it being put forth in the NH Legislature.

I am not convinced that a speed limit is the right answer but it may be the only choice unless someone can come up with a better one.

The whole situation on Winni and much smaller lakes is the same.
It is just proportional as it relates to the size of the lake not the individual boats. I want everyone to enjoy the lakes in our wonderful state and we have to do it safely and fairly.

I feel that rude and dangerous operation is the real root of the problem but how do we get that resolved? Do we put 10 MP's to every 100 boats on our waters? That is ludicris of course.

I do not have a definitive answer but we all should look at the whole picture on both sides of the issue and addresses the real problem as seen by a majority of us. Let the legislators know your feelings. If you cannot got to the hearing send a letter. It is your right to express your opinion.

Sorry I did 25 cents worth not 2.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 11:59 AM   #46
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,228
Thanks: 1,393
Thanked 1,320 Times in 464 Posts
Arrow Take The Speed Limit Poll!

Be sure to take this poll on lake speed limit!
Rattlesnake Gal is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 12:00 PM   #47
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 4,639
Thanks: 1,368
Thanked 1,401 Times in 757 Posts
Default

Please see the following email sent to the legislation's author Represtative James Pilliod MD from Belmont, with carbon copies to the other legislators representing Alton. I also forwarded this to Representative Currier, vice-chairman of the committee conducting the hearing urging that the legislation not be passed.

I hope others will take the time to contact the committee if they can not attend the hearing, and also contact the legislators from your area.

Dear Representative Pilliod:

As an avid boater and full time resident of the Lakes Region (Alton Bay), I feel compelled to write to you as the bill's sponsor, with carbon copies to the other Representatives and the Senator for my town.

There is no question that Lake Winnipesaukee can get crowded in the summertime. There is also no question that there are some boaters who will drive their boats too fast for conditions.

My concern is that you are proposing legislation establishing a speed limit that will be next to impossible to enforce. In the vehicular world, we have radar equipped police cars with officers trained in the use of the radar equipment. We also have unmarked police cars that can blend into the flow of traffic and "clock" a speeding automobile.

My boat on its best day is capable of reaching near the forty mile per hour speed mark. I normally cruise somewhere between twenty-five and thirty miles per hour. What I do not find is that I am constantly being "blown out of the water" by boats operating at a high rate of speed. What I do find is other boats that do not adhere to established regulations, most notably the "150 foot" rule.

A new regulation is not what is needed on Lake Winnipesaukee, especially one that is virtually unenforceable. What is needed is more education and more enforcement of existing regulations.

What I find very disappointing is that you are not sponsoring any companion legislation that would allow the Department of Safety's Marine Patrol additional funds for the purchase of radar guns (several hundred dollars each, I'm sure), additional funds for the training of Marine Patrol officers in the use of the radar guns, and additional funds for additional personnel to enforce this legislation.

New Hampshire's money can be better spent by increasing boater education and the ability for the Marine Patrol to better enforce the regulations that are already on the books.

In a nutshell: EDUCATE, not regulate.

Representative Pilliod, I urge you to withdraw your legislation.

To Representatives Boyce, Allen, Clark, Millham, Thomas, and Whalley: I urge you to vote "No" if this bill makes it out of committee and onto the floor.

To Senator Boyce: I urge you to contact Representative Pilliod, asking him to withdraw the legislation and to contact the other Representatives from Alton to vote "No" if this bill makes it to the floor.

To all addresses, I thank you for your time and your consideration.


Signed electronically


David M. Cumming

Thanks to Island Girl for the good links to the NH Legislative sites. Just Sold, looks like we are on about the same page here regarding contacting your legislators. If we just sit hear on the forum and gripe, those making the decisions will not know our opinion. Pro or con, contact them before the hearing!!!!!!



__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 12:33 PM   #48
hoytglp
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default speed

Did you ever see a 35ft. cruiser going 20mph -30mph the wake is hugh. The faster the boat the smaller the wake,just a thought. Signs helping people remember, THINK SAFTY and BE COURTEOUS at gas docks and boat ramps as a reminder, that we all want to enjoy the lake.

Last edited by hoytglp; 01-15-2005 at 01:05 PM.
hoytglp is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 02:01 PM   #49
Fat Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoytglp
Did you ever see a 35ft. cruiser going 20mph -30mph
A 35ft. cruiser will not go 20-30MPH on this lake for long before its owner will trailer it over to Sebago. Once the people over at Sebago get fed up with them like we have, these boats will be forced out to the ocean where they belong. That's the whole idea. People like you and me (assuming you can't afford one of these monsters either) will be able to take our families out on the lake again.
Fat Jack is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 02:06 PM   #50
Fat Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot
The hearing for this bill is next Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 am in Room 305 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. I'll be there in support of NO SPEED LIMIT . We need more help, so if you are against this please try to show up and stand up for your RIGHTS!

I heard on the news that there is so much interest that they are splitting up the hearing into two separate sessions. Those who are in favor of the bill and a speed limit should show at the above time. Those that are against should show up at 2PM.
Fat Jack is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 03:24 PM   #51
b8tcaster
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default upthesaukee is right

The answer to these issues is better education and enforcement. Interesting comments from the director of marine patrol in an interview with NHPR this past spring. http://nhpr.org/view_content/6630/
b8tcaster is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 05:03 PM   #52
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 810
Thanks: 134
Thanked 206 Times in 120 Posts
Default Let's focus on the behavior that causes the problems

I've been boating on the lake for 10 years now. I've seen people do all sorts of stupid boating behavior, mostly involving excess speeds closer than 150 ft. I'm sure others on this forum have longer boating experience on the lake than I, but not once have I had a problem because someone was going faster than 45 mph. I have seen others going fast but usually at a significant distance. My boat (22 ft) tops out at about 55. I will occassionally push it to the limit when I am a good distance from any obstacles. It's fun. After a couple of minutes I cut back to a more sedate crusing speed.
As others have pointed out, it's the reckless behavior, not the speed. I will conceed that the combination of bad behavior and speed can make a bad situation worse. However, a high speed pass through the broads early in the day is not inherently dangerous to anyone. I would bet that going out in a canoe or rowboat without a life jacket has caused more fatalities without any other boat even being involved. Can we figure out some type of legislation to prevent that stupid behavior? (Off topic - and snowmobilers that don't know the lake going out drunk late at night and drowning?)
Almost every time I can think of someone doing something dangerous on the lake I was aware that they were probably breaking an already existing law. Why don't we focus on education and enforcement of existing laws before we decide we have to regulate the fun out of everyone's lives.
jeffk is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 10:13 PM   #53
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Thumbs down What does a SL accomplish ?

Read the title of this post and think. A SL accomplishes no more that it can enforce, perhaps a SL of 45 mph. For some this is a potential means to an end, and I just wish they would be more forthcoming and admit it. For others they believe (I think mistakenly) it'll have some effect on safety. Let me address this for a moment ...

Certainly excess speed (?? hmmm excess ??) can produce tragic results, sometimes involving the innocent users of the lake. Othertimes it may just be annoying. I ask,what is what is excessive speed* ... can it be defined be a single number ? In our automotive life we see many SL's, those appropriate for the town and those appropriate (? well let's not argue this for a moment ?) for our interstates. So is the lake a town road or a highway ? Is a 45 mph limit appropriate for this town/highway ? I believe the lake is neither town nor interstate, at times it's more of the former (in areas and at times) and at the same time more of the latter (in other areas). A one-fix-fits-all solution is just wrong IMHO, unless you agree that restriction for all must serve the most restrictive case (so much for liberty). I there any data that supports that a SL, realistically enforced, would have any real effect on the lake ? I believe (you can disagree, hopefully a rational discussion may ensue) that people who operate a boat w/o due regard to other's won't be much changed by a SL, same as SL's haven't changed the speed on our highways. I believe that more enforcement, at those places and times where speed is an issue, would have a much more benefittial effect than would any SL. Let me be more upfront. Congestion is the real problem, speed where there is "high" congestion is the real issue. The effect of a MP boat in those high traffic areas is not to be underestimated. Is a rule change really required ? What would it (purportedly) solve ? Would "we" be better server by an MP boat (not that I care much for this solution) at the congestion points ? Would a lake-wide SL really do any better or could "we" come up with a more rational concept ??

Moreover I really think it's time to think about how "we" approach such things. It seems that "we" are tending towards a "Gov't restricts this bad thing" w/o thinking whether such approaches are the best to affect a change or whether a rule change will really change anything. I dunno, perhaps it's the late hour, but I'm getting dismayed at our collective ability to solve problems (what is our problem in this case ?) w/o invoking the far reaching and non-descrimanting powers of gov't.

*Excessive speed - so is 55 mph excessive on the highway ? 65 mph ?? OR is the problem the one of letting pretty much any idiot behind the wheel ??? Should we all drive slow so the morons amongst us be safe at any speed ??? Are they really safe at 55 ??? Are "we" given that "they" are on the road ????? What is the real problem anyway ??????
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 10:43 PM   #54
HUH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 230
Thanks: 21
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Default Relevance of speed and accidents

Someone please show me statisticaly that speed is the culprit for any detrimental effects on the lake ..YOU CANT
There are more adverse effects from boats leaving large wakes or uneducated boaters ..
Where did the 45 number come from a hat ? 45 is maximum wake speed for a lot of boats
25 at night leaves the bow of most boats high in the air impairing visibility.
This is not well thought out at all.
HUH is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 10:53 PM   #55
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default Night time SL

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
I see boats out cruising at night and in the dark at speeds of 30-40 mph and assume they use a global positioning system to assist their normal eyeball vision for steering. The technology of gps has created a new boating venue on Winnipeaukee enabling boaters to cruise along up on plane in the night. With a lot less boat traffic out there at night, it's a good time to be out on the water and the stunning surroundings take on a whole new look.....night-time. Even a small rowboat w/ a two horse outboard is supposed to have the required red-green-white lights for the night and it can always be seen by an 8000lb-500hp 31' Baha Bandit that is night cruising up on plane at speeds of 30mph and faster. Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?
Sorry FLL, I took this post as one to debate the nightime vs daytime aspects of a SL. Answering your question above I believe the MP estimated the speed of the Baja at about 27 MPH, not really a different velocity than the proposed 25 mph. The problem was not one of, hmmm, speed but rather that of (IMHO) observability, in this case (IMHO) limited by the driver's state (IMHO, have I protected Don enough here) not speed. SLs won't protect us from bad helmsman not matter what people say.

This said, the discussion of night time vs day time SLs are 2 different issues and should be approached as such. As for a 25 mph night limit ... Please make your case. I'm not against SLs as a rule, but there must be good reasoning & evidence for them .............
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 10:53 PM   #56
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 4,639
Thanks: 1,368
Thanked 1,401 Times in 757 Posts
Default A few replies from Reps

I have already heard from two representatives to whom I sent my email this morning. Both of them agree that while there is certainly cause for concern about boating conditions on Winnipesaukee, establishing a speed limit is not currently the best solution, nor is it an enforceable solution.

I am impressed that two of the nine legislators to whom I sent the email have already responded in less than twelve hours, and on a weekend.

Please utilize the links that Island Girl has provided to find out who you can contact (either pro or con) and why you feel this way. (You're right Mee-n-Mac, we need to act responsibly, educate thoroughly, and stop regulating for lack of any other kind of effort to solve a problem.).
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is offline  
Old 01-15-2005, 11:21 PM   #57
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,598
Thanks: 1,053
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Thumbs up

I sent my e-mail letter off to my Representatives today. How about the rest of you? IG posted the link here in this thread so everyone could contact their Representative.

We can gripe here on the Forum all we want but we need to be part of the process by letting our Representatives know how we feel too.

Upthesaukee: we do agree on this.

Here is the text of the Bill:
HB 162 – AS INTRODUCED
2005 SESSION

05-0103

03/01

HOUSE BILL 162

AN ACT establishing boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

SPONSORS: Rep. Pilliod, Belk 5

COMMITTEE: Resources, Recreation and Development

ANALYSIS

This bill establishes boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

2005 SESSION
            • 05-0103
03/01


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT establishing boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Restrictions on Boating; Lake Winnipesaukee. Amend RSA 270 by inserting after section 130 the following new section:

270:131 Lake Winnipesaukee. No person shall use or operate any powerboat, motorboat, or boat equipped with any type of power motor at a rate of speed exceeding 45 miles per hour during daylight hours and 25 miles per hour during night hours on the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee. As used in this section, “daylight hours” means the hours between 1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset and “night hours” means the hours 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 08:00 AM   #58
BI1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?
Ya Ya ...Old News....And that was a terrible thing!...There have been many accidents on the lake... Sail boats turn over, Bass boats taking a big wave and sinking, go fast boats hooking and sinking, jet skis colliding ,people diving in and hitting there head ect... and many collisions due to many factors ..Most all of these were not caused by speed alone.. Its operator error!! and the MPs are out there to enforce the law and watch for safety issues ...putting a 45 mph speed limit or any speed limit will not fix 98% of the causes of most accidents. If we need to make areas of the lake slower post no wake zones in those areas...
My .02
Bob
(LIVE FREE OR DIE!)
BI1 is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 08:39 AM   #59
Island Girl
Senior Member
 
Island Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,325
Thanks: 16
Thanked 496 Times in 167 Posts
Default Here is how the bill started

http://www4.citizen.com/January2005/..._01.15.05a.asp
__________________
Island Girl

....... Make Lemonade
Island Girl is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 08:50 AM   #60
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 606
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Regardless of your position on this, I too urge all of you to write your reps and senator. The ones I've written to have been very responsive, and echo the sentiments that upthesaukee received.

Even if you aren't a "resident", I think they would welcome your opinion.

By the way, here's a link to boating accident statistics (USCG)

USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents. Only 10% or so were caused by excessive speed (which could be 15mph depending on the circumstances). Of the total number of fatalities, 82% were not wearing life jackets. Alcohol was involved in 31% of all boating fatalities. Based on the statistics, it seems that there are other areas of significance to focus on.

Last edited by Paugus Bay Resident; 01-16-2005 at 08:59 AM.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 09:33 AM   #61
Rose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 498
Thanks: 62
Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts
Default What about a license?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident
USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents.
Since many accidents were caused by operator inattention, carelessness or inexperience, how do people feel about an operator's license (not a certificate) in which an individual would need to pass a basic boating operation test as well the current written test? I'm not necessarily advocating this, just curious. I know I would feel more confident behind the wheel if I took a few lessons.

Rose
Rose is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 10:09 AM   #62
CEP
Senior Member
 
CEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Charlton City,MA
Posts: 110
Thanks: 8
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I don't think that speed limits and or driving license would be needed.
Most people I know, that operate boats on the lakes, already have a drivers license. However, we all know how some handle themselves on the roads.
Education and Experiance is needed! We all need to have a different attitude tords operating on the lakes. Slow down in tight situations, and be alert, and curtious to the other guy near you. Safety for yourself and the loved ones and passengers you have on board.
God knows we have enough regulations on the books today, we need no more.
A safe cruise, is a good cruise. All's well, that ends well!

CEP
CEP is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 10:17 AM   #63
JG1222
Senior Member
 
JG1222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pelham, NH
Posts: 345
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.
JG1222 is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 11:51 AM   #64
HUH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 230
Thanks: 21
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Default Hipocrit

The fellow who owns the boat yard that wants this bill is also touting that his boat yard is some enviromental yard stick ..Just the opposite his boat yard is a DUMP with leaking engine blocks , a barrel where they burn trash is going 24/7.There are people living in trailers on the property..
I live just up the shore from this eyesore and there is a constant slick of oil floating buy ..
Yet he claims hes leading the charge for eviro sensitive boat yards
His yard is also a sailboat mecca on the lake and for some reason the sailboaters cant get along with the powerboaters..When in fact I feel the sailboaters can be a great hazard .. When they are leaving the channel from this boat yard they must stick to the wrong side of the channel due to shallow water , sometimes not giving way ..People unfamiliar with this routine are often confused and or forced out of the channel to make way for the big sailboats that are half out of control from there lack of power to size..
Fast power boats create no hazard whatsoever for sailboats ..Its just that they dont feel you are as eviromentaly concious as them and you should mend your ways .Or they feel annoyed that you have driven by them on their tranquil journey around golden pond . This is , "as it turns out" is what the true motive of the person pushing for this bill ..
Take a ride by this boat yard and see for yourself ..
HUH is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 12:04 PM   #65
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

I have a small (26ft.), single engine express cruiser that will not (quite) reach the proposed 45 MPH speed limit, so I personally have no axe to grind in this matter.

However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because:

Fiberglass boats make poor radar targets at best; fiberglass does not reflect radar signals very well. This is why companies make and sell radar reflecters for ocean-going boats that are likely to need to operate in heavy fog!

So far as I'm aware, hand-held radar guns are intended to compare the speed of an on-coming target to a stationary position (the parked cruiser). I strongly suspect that the readings would be heavily effected by the relative speeds and courses of the MP boat and whatever they were targeting. Getting accurate readings would seem to require a much more sophisticated and expensive technology! (Perhaps Skip could weigh in on this?)

Unless we all start carrying some sort of transponder, the MP boat would need to be close enough to the offending boat to either read the bow numbers or chase it down.

Safe operating speed is determined by circumstances; absolute speed has nothing to do with it! There are plenty of situations in which my 43 MPH top end would constitute reckless operation. And, if an MP officer observes a boat being operated in an unsafe manner, he already has the legal basis to ticket the operator; no further laws are needed!

What's really needed on the lake are more common sense and courtesy, which are difficult to legislate. IMHO, this speed limit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to drive performance boats off the lake!

Silver Duck
Silver Duck is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 01:21 PM   #66
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,229
Thanks: 794
Thanked 394 Times in 282 Posts
Unhappy Statistics? Rowboats, canoes, kayaks, sailboats...are the victims!

Look at Washington state statistics. They have an equal number of registered hunters and boaters. There, hunting is safer than boating! http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/...day/news02.txt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck
"...However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because..."
1) Director Barrett is already quoted as saying the MPs can't enforce the proposed law -- see b8caster's http://nhpr.org/view_content/6630/

2) NH laws expect voluntary compliance -- and largely gets it.

3) Director Barrett does not address a VASCAR approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG1222
Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.
So how is this a big deal?

How many small boaters -- the victims in most instances -- are NOT exempt from Boat Operator Instruction?

I'd fully expect the majority of fatalities to have had "None".
ApS is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 04:26 PM   #67
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default No Enforcement Required

This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits.
Islander is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 04:44 PM   #68
Silver Duck
Senior Member
 
Silver Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 364
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Per Islander's post, I guess the real purpose of this speed limit is no longer thinly veiled, but out in the open!
Silver Duck is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 05:50 PM   #69
b8tcaster
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Some things to consider

If as Islander states, that gradually boaters will gravitate away from the lake due to speed limits or other restrictions, it makes sense that the lake will become less attractive to people with the means to purchase and operate high performance and or luxury boats. What economic impact will that have on the lakes region businesses?(marinas,construction companies boatyards,etc).What impact could it have on the values of properties surrounding the lake. I doubt that people will choose to change the way they enjoy their free time on the water. They may decide to change where they live and or play. Seems to me that the ability to operate these types of boats on the lake is what draws a major amount of the big money to the lakes region. I dont own or operate a large pleasure boat but I dont underestimate how much money people that do must pump into the local economy. Just some things to think about.
b8tcaster is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 06:14 PM   #70
Alton Bay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 181
Thanks: 62
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Default Call your legislator

Many of your legislators have their Concord emails listed, not their home emails. If you really want to send a message, I suggest you call them at
home. Most reps don't mind and are happy to get input from voters. Many live
off the lake and value your thoughts. I would never rely on email to send a message.
Call them at home!
Alton Bay is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 06:25 PM   #71
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.
Islander is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 06:50 PM   #72
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 606
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Islander,

How do you propose people with performance boats deal with the decreased value of boats they purchased prior to a speed limit law? What about marinas with new (and used) inventory that is no longer marketable on the lake? The economic implications are no quite so simplistic.

Also, you mentioned "the big boats are probably 2%", don't know if that's true, but not only big boats are effected. There are plenty of boats in the 21 - 25 foot range that are capable of speeds in the high 60s and 70s. A 24-foot HTM cat with reasonable HP will do 80+. A 20-foot Baja Outlaw with a 7.3L will run in the 60s. An Donzi Sweet 16 will be up there too. Jees, 10 years ago, I had an 18 foot Stingray bowrider that would run in the high 50s.

And least we forget our jet skiing brethren.

Size, al least in this case , is irrelevant.

Last edited by Paugus Bay Resident; 01-16-2005 at 07:10 PM.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 07:58 PM   #73
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Talking Islander needs to rethink, me thinks...

View Poll Results:
How do you feel about a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee?

I strongly feel the state should implement a 45 mph speed limit! (14) 28.57%

I think a speed limit on certain parts of the lake might be appropriate, perhaps higher than 45mph. (3) 6.12%

I don’t care either way. (1) 2.04%

I don’t think we need a speed limit. (8) 16.33%

I am strongly opposed to any speed limit on the lake! (23) 46.94%


Not impressed with your interpretation of the poll.

17 were for some kind of a speed limit and 31 were against some kind of a speed limit.

"Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts", as Joe Friday would say.
GWC... is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 07:59 PM   #74
Islander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Default

If the law passes performance boat will not loose any value. But they will have to sell them somewhere else, the market on the lake will be poor.

The boats you talk about are not the norm. Bowriders in the 150 to 250 HP is the norm. Only a small percentage of boats on the lake will do over 60.

There must be over a thousand boats on the islands, but very very few performance boats. They are not the best thing to use when you need to run out for a quart of milk.

28.57% + 6.12% is 35%. These people voted for at least some kind of speed limit.

Less than 50% are "strongly opposed". And again this is from people in a BOATING FORUM!!!

Last edited by Islander; 01-16-2005 at 08:09 PM.
Islander is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 08:45 PM   #75
JG1222
Senior Member
 
JG1222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pelham, NH
Posts: 345
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG1222
Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
So how is this a big deal?
Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.

Last edited by JG1222; 01-17-2005 at 08:24 AM. Reason: Spelling
JG1222 is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 09:04 PM   #76
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 606
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
If the law passes performance boat will not loose any value. But they will have to sell them somewhere else, the market on the lake will be poor.
Quote:
The boats you talk about are not the norm. Bowriders in the 150 to 250 HP is the norm. Only a small percentage of boats on the lake will do over 60.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Paugus Bay Resident; 01-16-2005 at 09:07 PM.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 09:11 PM   #77
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

How could a speed limit on the lake change the value of a high performance boat? Put it on a trailer and sell it on Cape Cod, Long Island, Miami, Key West ect. OK you will be out the transportation charges.
Island Lover is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 10:36 PM   #78
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
You talk about rights, but there is no RIGHT to operate any size boat at any speed on a NH lake, anymore then there is a right to operate any vehicle at any speed on NH highways.

We are a society of laws, and if the majority want a speed or horse power limit on the lake then that is what they will have.

Enforcement is not the issue. Safety is not the issue. Majority rule is the issue.

Things are getting out of hand on the lake and the majority want a change. If you think the majority want more big loud boats on the lake then you are out of touch with the community.

This law or one like it WILL pass. Perhaps not this year or the next but if you think the status will remain quo then you have your head in the sand.

Next time you paint your boats use salt resistant paint.

With all due respect I think you are completely wrong with your "majority rules" issue. Certainly in some aspects, as elections, that is what the outcome shall be based on, however, our society is also based on personal freedoms. Our country was based, and fought for, in the belief of personal freedoms. We have a Bill of Rights that is about freedom.

I do not particularly care for sailboats, but I will certainly defend someone's right to own and enjoy it. Where do I have the right to say that someone else may not enjoy their passion, just because I enjoy something different? I don't, and neither do you.

Someone can be just as irresponsible in a canoe, as one of those "ceegar" boats. This entire issue of the lake is an issue of responsibility and accountability for one's own actions irregardless of what type of boat they may choose to enjoy.

If someone goes by you in one of those boats that you obviously detest so much, how long do you really hear it, thirty seconds, maybe a minute, then it's gone. The problem, Bear Lover, is that your own distaste for this particular type of boat has brought you to the point of believing in the concept of "if I don't like it, you can't do it". That is wrong. And it would be just as wrong if the person operating that big loud boat wanted to ban you from the lake. Life is about compromise. And compromise is the only concept that will keep this speed issue from becoming very ugly. We don't need speed limits, what we need is for people to be courteous and respectful of each other, and recognize that everyone has the same right to enjoy the lake in the manner that they may choose, not a choice forced upon them by others. The next time you want to talk about banning a certain type of boat, think of how you would feel if someone wanted to ban you, just because they did not like the vessel that you chose to own and enjoy.

Of all the different groups of boaters, in my neck of the woods, it is the "Offshore" crowd that is without question the most courteous on the water. Our local law enforcement will attest to that.

The "Offshore" community has raised millions and millions of dollars for charities via sanctioned races and Poker Runs, and Fun Runs. They are "good people". Someday you might consider stepping down from your soapbox and actually try to get to know some, or better yet, take a ride in one of those boats. I have not yet met anyone who has not enjoyed it.

Remember, do unto others.......FormulaOutlaw
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 10:47 PM   #79
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander
b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.

Think about this: 70% of the people don't want a speed limit.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-16-2005, 10:56 PM   #80
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDeere
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]

There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH. Where is anyone going that they need the extra speed? The speed is not about traveling to a destination it is about the thrill. IMHO!

[ Anyway, slower is safer and more friendly to the lake and those that live, weekend, summer, fish, swim, wade, canoe etc. on it!

I must have missed something in "Life 101". Since when is a "thrill" a bad thing? If you have reached a point in your life that either nothing thrills you, or you have no interest in thrill, I feel very sorry for you. Thrill is a good thing, whether it is boating, or going to a good movie.

It's all about the fun of something. Slower does not automatically equate to safer. I'd trust a sober experienced Captain running 100 mph with a vessel that is capable of safely doing that speed, before I'd trust a drunk running 25 mph in an eighteen foot bowrider.

It's all about responsibility and accountability for one's actions. It's just that simple. Nothing more.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 12:08 AM   #81
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

FormulaOutlaw

You have no idea what my experiences or motivations are. If you read my posts again you will find that I never gave my opinion of the speed limit. I was giving my take on why some people want a speed limit and predicting what the outcome will be if it passes. You don't have to want a speed limit in order to realize that it is coming. Dozens of NH lakes have been given speed and horsepower limits in the last few years. It's folly to assume that Winnipesaukee is immune.

The only comment I made on the subject was that things are getting out of hand on the lake, and I stand by that.

And I don't need you to tell me about the Offshore community. In the eighties I crewed the "Piccadilly Filly". So I think you are the one that is on the soap box.
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 06:54 AM   #82
BI1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander
b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.
A speed limit will not cure all the woes of the lake...speed is not the issue or the problem...I have lived on(summers) and boated on Winni most of my life
The increasing problem I see is inexperience!!! not speed the % of people who Buy a jet ski or open bow boat,(runabout) think the lake has few rules and in the process of finding out are a hazard to most everyone else. .education is the first key to the fix...
My .02
BI1 is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 08:18 AM   #83
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
FormulaOutlaw

You have no idea what my experiences or motivations are. If you read my posts again you will find that I never gave my opinion of the speed limit. I was giving my take on why some people want a speed limit and predicting what the outcome will be if it passes. You don't have to want a speed limit in order to realize that it is coming. Dozens of NH lakes have been given speed and horsepower limits in the last few years. It's folly to assume that Winnipesaukee is immune.

The only comment I made on the subject was that things are getting out of hand on the lake, and I stand by that.

And I don't need you to tell me about the Offshore community. In the eighties I crewed the "Piccadilly Filly". So I think you are the one that is on the soap box.
You are correct, I do not, and don't particularly want to know, your motivations. I just read and understand the English language reasonably well. Comparing Winnipesaukee with the small lakes that have horsepower limits is rather foolish. Winnipesaukee is not a small lake.

I read what you wrote thoroughly and congratulations you made your feelings known without "committing" by statement. You must be either a lawyer or politician. Doesn't matter.

And if standing on a soapbox protects the interests of all involved, then I'm not coming down. The difference between us is that I understand the rights of others are just as important as my own rights. Your parting shot about the paint pretty much lets anyone understand where you are coming from.

Crewing for a race team twenty years ago means little in 2005. Like I stated, few groups of people have done as much for charities, mostly helping children, as the "offshore" group. As I sit on two "Board of Directors" for offshore groups, help produce two national boat races, help produce and have personally produced poker runs, all in helping either the Suncoast Foundation for the Handicapped, Inc., the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and PAL, I have a reasonable idea of what I'm speaking of.

This entire issue on "the lake" is still and will always be about responsibility and accountability, something you cannot legislate. Education and awareness is the key, and next time out, wave at an offshore boat, you'll get a wave back.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:02 AM   #84
HUH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 230
Thanks: 21
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
FormulaOutlaw

You have no idea what my experiences or motivations are. If you read my posts again you will find that I never gave my opinion of the speed limit. I was giving my take on why some people want a speed limit and predicting what the outcome will be if it passes. You don't have to want a speed limit in order to realize that it is coming. Dozens of NH lakes have been given speed and horsepower limits in the last few years. It's folly to assume that Winnipesaukee is immune.

The only comment I made on the subject was that things are getting out of hand on the lake, and I stand by that.

And I don't need you to tell me about the Offshore community. In the eighties I crewed the "Piccadilly Filly". So I think you are the one that is on the soap box.
You keep talking about the other NH lakes that have speed limits.. This is totaly irrelivant to the situation on Winni.. The BIG LAKE is just that its ten times the size of the next largest lake in NH..
Shall I go dig up the numbers
HUH is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 11:19 AM   #85
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,229
Thanks: 794
Thanked 394 Times in 282 Posts
Default "Don't Act Like Idiots?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG1222
Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.
My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?
ApS is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 11:57 AM   #86
nightrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: winter harbor
Posts: 182
Thanks: 4
Thanked 28 Times in 15 Posts
Default speed limit

A two-seat PWC is not defined as a "boat". If this law passes, would they be exempt?
nightrider is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 07:30 PM   #87
b8tcaster
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default The one thing we all need to keep in mind

The director of the marine patrol has stated that this is nothing but "feel good legislation" and next to impossible to enforce. I for one would really support any recommendations that he makes to alleviate the situation as I feel that he knows better than most of us since he is responsible for safety issues on New Hampshire waters. I certainly hope that he is in attendance at the hearing to express his thoughts. I personally would like to see more funding for the marine patrol in order to have a greater presence on the lake.I keep thinking of my time on the lake and how would a speed limit change things. Would it change things at Eagle island or near the Weirs on a summer weekend?. Would it change the the way people operate between Lockes Island and Belknap point.Would it change the way people enter or leave Wolfeboro Bay, Alton bay, or any other popular areas? Would it really slow people down at all? I personally dont think so. Why? Because the marine patrol does not have enough manpower on the lake to enforce it. I cant count the number of times i have seen them with someone stopped and other boats fly by within 150' of myself and the marine patrol knowing that since they are already busy they will not be caught. The answer to the problems is the ability to enforce already existing laws
b8tcaster is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 08:05 PM   #88
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?

Allow me to answer a few questions or address a few issues if you please.

"The Other Site" is not the Marine Mafia, although we did get quite a chuckle out of that. You must think we are capable of bringing some "serious muscle" to the table. What "we" are is a group of people who share the same common interest: boating. What "we" are is a group of people who like to have fun and joke around with each other. I have made some very very strong friendships in that Forum, people I have never laid eyes on. We are a 25,000 plus "family".

The reason we are paying attention to the issues on "the Lake" is because of the potential of restricting it's use to "all" that enjoy it. Not just us, but everyone. That is the most important issue here people, everyone has the same right to enjoy that lake. Not just the person in a canoe, not just the person on a jet ski, not just the person on a sailboat, and not just the person in one of them big bad "ceegar" boats.

Posting a speed limit on "the Lake" will do nothing, absolutely nothing. Education and awareness are the only two items that will help make the lake safer for all. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people who have posted in this forum don't, or refuse, to see that. We're not talking rocket science here people, use basic common sense. "High speed" causes very very few accidents. "Inexperience" causes most. Unawareness causes a lot. Alcohol certainly contributes it's share. Not speed.

You must have a "wake law" up there, enforce it. If not, enact a "wake responsibility" law. That will help.

It has been suggested that there is a segment who wish "the Lake" to return to "the 30's". That's just not going to happen. However, if everyone works together for everyone's sake, you just might be amazed at what can can be accomplished. Again, for everyone's benefit.

Stop using speed as your scapegoat for the failure to address the situation properly and wisely.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 08:37 PM   #89
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

BearLover: For the Record:

Yes, I list Sarasota over at the other site but actually live in Nokomis, ten miles south. Why? People know Sarasota, but no one would know where Nokomis is located. I lived in the Sarasota city limits for over 20 years graduating from Sarasota High School so I proudly call Sarasota home.

I lived in Maine for 18 years. From 91' to 96' I trailered over to "the Lake" more than 20 times. Loved boating there. I've also boated on Sebago and Moosehead in Maine. And the Atlantic Ocean.

Spent a lot of time in New Hampshire, riding motorcycles through the mountains around North Conway.

New Hampshire is a beautiful state with great people. I always enjoyed myself there and would like to continue to do so. Formula Outlaw
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 08:47 PM   #90
Bear Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Nice words Formula Outlaw, but the following quotes are by you and better display who you are and what you think of us and me. You are welcome to talk about me, but leave my children alone!

Quote:
by Formula Outlaw

I just went into the first site to lurk. One rubberhead states that anyone going over 45 "isn't going that fast to get somewhere, but for the thrill of it". What in the hell is wrong with getting a thrill outta life????? They need to put that idiot in a box, put it in the ground, and throw the dirt on it.

It's bad having a thrill? That's one of the absolute stupidest moronic things I have ever read. Thank God I live down here. I couldn't take those azzholes.

______________________________________

No kidding.......going through that Forum last night it was so "Green" my computer felt like it had Kryptonite around it. This one guy who owns, according to others, the biggest dump of a marina on the lake, is juming on the "let's clean up the lake" bandwagon. Wants to put PortaPotties so the ice fisherman won't piss in the lake.

I wonder how he'll train the fish to use the PortaPotties?

I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?
Bear Lover is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:07 PM   #91
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
Nice words Formula Outlaw, but the following quotes are by you and better display who you are and what you think of us and me. You are welcome to talk about me, but leave my children alone!

Yes I certainly did say that, in my forum, not yours. In your forum I was polite, courteous, and respectful.

And who I am is very simple.

One: I am someone who can speak the "King's English" and conduct myself with the utmost courtesy.


Second: I am also someone, as they say in hockey, who is not afraid to "drop the gloves and go".


What you reference to regarding your children was intended as a joke. I have no idea if you are male or female not that it matters. If you found that offensive I apologize.

My father taught me two things: stand up for myself and call it straight. I do. For someone to say that having a thrill in life is bad, is just plain sad. If you disagree with that statement, I feel sorry for you because life has passed you by.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:09 PM   #92
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,229
Thanks: 794
Thanked 394 Times in 282 Posts
Default Wrong law, wrong speed, at the wrong time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula Outlaw
Yes, I list Sarasota over at the other site but actually live in Nokomis, ten miles south. Why? People know Sarasota, but no one would know where Nokomis is located.
Nokomis is a quiet town, close to wide-open waters and home to Stiletto restorations, one of the most innovative boat designs around.

Winnipesaukee is an increasingly crowded lake with a short boating season and an increasing summer-season rental environment, with more and more rooms becoming available. It is getting noisy and frantic.

Calling for "Offshore" help in fixing our speed limit poll is not helpful; however, your site did suggest that no speed limit is acceptable. Point taken.

This proposed law should have been written to read 110MPH.

I've only seen one boat that could exceed it on Winnipesaukee -- and it surely did the day I saw it pass between my dock and a stalled Hobie with four pre-teen girls on it.

As more boaters witness the excesses I've seen, the limit can be adjusted appropriately -- hopefully without help from the headlines your boats so frequently make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Lover, quoting Formula Outlaw
"...I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?"
You'll remember I previously described them as the "Marine Mafia"?

Geesh. Wish I could have seen the site before they "cleaned it up!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula Outlaw
"The Other Site" is not the Marine Mafia,
Who to believe?

Who to believe?

Last edited by ApS; 01-17-2005 at 09:34 PM. Reason: grammar
ApS is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:23 PM   #93
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Since some of you seem to enjoy stealing quotes from our "Marine Mafia" site, why don't you post the photos of one of your noble spokeperson's property. I especially like the one showing the little trailer someone is living in with the sewer line going directly into the ground. Or how about the diesel tank leaking right above the shoreline, directly into the water?

Like I said to BearLover, what I say or how I say it in my forum is my business. If you want to post it in your forum your are more than welcome to. I stand by what I said.

In your forum I have been nothing but courteous, polite, and respectful.

Do you think there is something wrong with having a thrill in life? Do you really think that is a bad thing? I'm sorry, for someone to state that having a thrill is a bad thing, that person's life has without question passed them by.
I truely hope that is not how the majority of you people feel.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:45 PM   #94
Audiofn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME
Posts: 162
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?
Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women.

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon
Audiofn is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:52 PM   #95
JG1222
Senior Member
 
JG1222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pelham, NH
Posts: 345
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Exclamation And, we're off!

Boys and girls - we're officially off topic, turning a lively discussion about a specific lake-related issue into a series of personal attacks. Not to mention, not adding anything new about the actual topic in quite a few posts.

I'm not really interested in the drama of a pissing contest between the Winnipesaukee Forum and Offshores Only Forum.

I've just unsubscribed from this thread and will no longer participate. I would urge others (from whatever forum) to do the same if they feel the same way.

Last edited by JG1222; 01-17-2005 at 09:56 PM.
JG1222 is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 09:55 PM   #96
CMG
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Windham - NH
Posts: 21
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Obviously the 2 sides of the issue shall never meet. We all have our motives & interests in the legislation and are kidding each other that the decision will be made between 2 websites (btw, being discussed on more sites than you'd think). We all share the same hobby and too bad there needs to be a line drawn in the sand (water?, speedometer?).
I have a boat - boating for 20 years - never had a citation - an insurance claim - an accident - never caused one. When a boater (or jet ski'r) operates wrecklessly he/she should be held responsible for their actions, not those that the law protects. There should be laws in place to promote safe operation and punish offenders for the lack of. THERE ALREADYARE.
The answer may be additional law enforcement - which may mean additional Marine Patrol and funding. Punish those that offend and allow the rest of the law abiding public to enjoy a natural resource.
CMG is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 10:40 PM   #97
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 4,639
Thanks: 1,368
Thanked 1,401 Times in 757 Posts
Default Getting way off topic.

Ok, enough of the bashing person vs. person, website vs. website.

Enough of the name calling.

If one doesn't like a website, don't go there...it's that simple.

You wouldn't pay to go to a movie that offends you.

We certainly don't have to do battle with one another. If we disagree with someone's viewpoint, we can courteously disagree, or we can just bite the tongue and stay out of it.

It is time to take off the boxing gloves and put this acrimonious stuff to bed. Time for peace, please!!!!
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 11:06 PM   #98
FormulaOutlaw
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiofn
Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women.

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon

Here here Jon. It is "family" like you that make me extremely proud to be a member of OSO.

In this forum, in my own posts, I have been respectful. I will always defend someone's right to disagree with me. I think it's laughable that some have chosen to steal posts from "the other site" in order to try to demean respectfully written posts in this site. Is that the best you can do?????
You can't say anything to dispute what we have written here, so you try to discredit it by blurring the issue and slamming us. Well slam away. The only thing I'm interested in this Forum is standing up for the rights of everyone, even those of you who I strongly disagree with. And that is more than what you would be willing to do for me. I didn't sneak into your forum and steal posts.

Education and awareness will help your situation. Concentrate on the issue at hand, not making others who disagree with you look bad. Won't work.
FormulaOutlaw is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 11:31 PM   #99
Outlaw
Senior Member
 
Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default You answered your own question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover
How could a speed limit on the lake change the value of a high performance boat? Put it on a trailer and sell it on Cape Cod, Long Island, Miami, Key West ect. OK you will be out the transportation charges.

Case in point - you just explained how the value of ANY BOAT capable of speeds in excess of 45mph will be adversely effected. CLUE - it costs money to ship a boat elsewhere, it costs money to advertise it elsewhere, it costs money for the boat to be shown elsewhere not to mention time. Do you have ANY idea what transportation charges are to ship a boat to Miami? Do you even know what it entails to do such a thing?

Now the marinas which sell boats capable of speeds in excess of 45mph, of which there are at least 4 of them on the lake I can think of right away, they will have to sell the boats at a reduced cost (if not a loss) and in order to remain in business they will need to pick up another line of boats and in case you are not aware, picking up a line of boats is not like shopping for shoes. There are 'exclusives' involved based on territory and such, so this could be a huge financial undertaking if at all feasible for all those marinas. In short, you could expect the marinas to have lay offs and that I'm sure you would agree this would not be an economical benefit to the states economy.

This speed limit topic and your rebuttals all fall back on the same issue - education and the need for it.
__________________
I fought the Law, and the Law won
Outlaw is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:02 AM   #100
Audiofn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bedford, MA/Naples, ME
Posts: 162
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Interestingly it is not the "Gofasters" that will only be effected by this law. What about all the bass fishermen? Most boats now days go over 45mph. Even this one goes faster then my "go fast" boat. I guess it is not so fast
Attached Images
 
Audiofn is offline  
Closed Thread

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 -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.61429 seconds