Speed limit permanent to be filed!

[Airwaves]

Given this article in the Laconia Daily Sun today and the quote from the bill’s sponsor regarding not waiting until next year to gather data…and the fact that the bill to eliminate the sunset of the {speed limit law} will be filed NEXT MONTH!

Perhaps it is time to consider opening the discussion once again. I recall Don saying he would weigh that option when the time came.

[Kracken]

+ 1 With airwaves.

It was a little slow last week...I had enough time to read all the closed {speed limit} threads. I did not felt strongly either way before last week, that has changed.

[ironhorsetim]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Perhaps it is time to consider opening the discussion once again. I recall Don saying he would weigh that option when the time came.

Why start another thread when the first one ended soooo badly that it had to be closed?

Those concerned (both sides) should take their anger out on the Legislator's and not repeat the clubbing that went on before.

That of course is just "my" opinion.

Then again, this is a forum.

[Woodsy]

Its baaaaaaccccckkk!

Woodsy

[ironhorsetim]

Woodsy, you are a trip

[VtSteve]

Given the Captain Bonehead threads, you'd think they would have bigger problems to solve. It would seem they don't have a good handle on what the "culture of the lake" really is

[chipj29]

Since the SL passed, my fear was always that no matter the outcome, it would be easy for SL supporters to extend the 2 year trial. My rationale is that:
1. If the data comes back and shows that there were very few speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective in keeping faster boats off the lake.
2. If the data comes back and shows that there were a bunch of speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective and enforceable, and because a lot of tix were issued, is still needed.

[LakeSnake]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Since the SL passed, my fear was always that no matter the outcome, it would be easy for SL supporters to extend the 2 year trial. My rationale is that:
1. If the data comes back and shows that there were very few speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective in keeping faster boats off the lake.
2. If the data comes back and shows that there were a bunch of speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective and enforceable, and because a lot of tix were issued, is still needed.

Chipj29 - there is one thing wrong with your logic - you used the word "rationale". I don't think the legislature knows what that is - much less how to use it. Welcome to Mass in the Mountains.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Yes, open it back up. The public has a right to know, maybe now they will see this extremist group for what it really is.

[caloway]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

Why start another thread when the first one ended soooo badly that it had to be closed?

Those concerned (both sides) should take their anger out on the Legislator's and not repeat the clubbing that went on before.

That of course is just "my" opinion.

Then again, this is a forum.

Got my senator, rep. and Lynch. By the way, my rep already returned my msg. Nice work!

Also a relatively quick observation:

Looks to me like 95% of the boats on the lake would have a hard time topping 45mph on the rough waters of Winni. From the posts on this board it would seem that we're overrepresented by the other 5%. As vocal as the 5% may be, it's pretty hard to overcome the numbers. Time to compromise.

[Resident 2B]

Speed has never been the real issue on Lake Winnipesaukee. The argument that peed has been the real issue was a pure fabrication by those with another agenda that happen to have enough money to push their cause.

Enforcing all of the laws in place last year (2008) will solve 99% of the real boating issues on the lake today. I believe that was also the opinion of the head of the NHMP.

If the bill to make this ridiculous speed limit permanent is going forward, in the interest of fairness, it is time to reopen the old thread or allow a new thread to open with some restrictions, such as one post per day.

Those in opposition to the speed limit cannot let the fictitious and fabricated spin of the few who seem to have the politicians in their back pocket continue to have their way without the ability to comment.

Again, we have our boneheads on the lake. They are the real issue. Speed is not.

Let freedom ring!

R2B

[tis]

I have seen absolutely no difference on the lake with the speed limit. I don' t
feel one bit safer, in fact, I think the 150' rule is way out of control this year and that is the one that we should worry about.
Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

[Kracken]

Last time most opponents of the speed limit did not believe it would ever happen. There were simply too many powerful organizations and individuals that would protect everyone’s freedoms and there was no way it would be taken away by the special interest groups. There was simply no need for the average citizen to get involved, the belief was common sense would ultimately prevail.

The proponents of the bill were certainly the vocal minority but they were organized and determined to have their agenda pushed through. The proponents are still active. They want to make this law permanent before the “sunset” effectively eliminating any reflection, evaluation or opposition.

I don’t doubt it’s the Captain Boneheads that are the real problem. I would rather share the lake with 200 GFBL (excuse me performance boats) than one Captain Bonehead. We can sit and debate how Darwin was right or we can start to get our lake back.

I urge everybody to get involved before it is too late. Please open the thread not only to debate but to set a plan of action. We need to let the legislators of this state know we are the vocal majority and WE VOTE.

I will get off my soap box now.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Resident or not, if you want to stop this bogus end-around now, start contacting every rep and senator that voted for this rediculous legislation. This is the exact strategy that they had in mind from the beginning. Get the vote with the sunset law, then make the sunset law disappear by creating lame excuses for why it should be eliminated. Pathetic!

In addition, those of us that reside in NH should be prepared to vote these people out of office when the next election rolls around. They are ruining this State, just like their bretheren in Washington are ruining this country.

VOTE THEM OUT!

[VtSteve]

As those with time to spare have proven, if you talk to the right people, organize a little, and put out mis-information in all the right circles, your odds of winning are much higher. So, right back at em.

The MP knows full well what this new law would produce, little or nothing. They also knew the proponents would be disappointed, and warned that they shouldn't expect a deluge of violations. Because as Barrett said himself, it wasn't that big a problem to begin with.

Most people on most lakes, performance boaters included, know full well that the problem lies in enforcement. There are irresponsible boaters on everything from kayaks to triple-engined speed merchants. The proponents of the law knew that. They also knew that funding was inadequate, but did nothing to assist the process. Some Proponents have also indicated, both in writing and insinuations, that their main intent of the new law was to eliminate a certain group of people from the lake itself. That's quite a heady goal in the United States, given this country's propensity to save everything from endangered species to providing special rights to most every special interest group that exists.

The media and the public need to be educated, not brainwashed. If a small group is very vocal and outspoken, they can offer up a number of miss statements as they did last year. It was a popular time for them to succeed at their little project. Even though the outrage at the time was over a particular one or two accidents, neither involving speed, it worked. Their intent wasn't safety at all, they were prejudiced against a group of boaters they don't like, and probably have never met. Most of the ones I know of are pretty decent people, and are far more responsible with their boats than the general boating population. Admittedly, some are not.

So maybe now it's time for the rational boaters to have their say. For every proponent that wants to "change the culture" of the lake, there are at least that many that can rattle off a variety of safety issues on the water that go unexposed to the public eye. The general public only reads what they read, and watch the stories that they see on the news. If they hear a story where a High-Speed Performance Boat crashed into an island, they naturally assume that a Big Bad Fast boat crashed at high speed and these people need to be stopped. Ditto with the previous accident, which was arguably at a pretty low speed.

TV crews need to have their thirst quenched for newsworthy stories like this. They were duped, now maybe it's time to enlighten them. Video is a Very Powerful Force on TV news. There should be enough footage in one weekend to fill a documentary. Spokespeople against this law shouldn't use the same, immature and unhelpful tactics that groups like Winfabs used. Honesty works. While most acknowledge that the intent wasn't safety, that needs to get out in the public eye. There was a bad accident recently in Texas that involved a couple of wakeboard boats, one of which was driven at night by a drunk. Not much of a surprise to many of us. A woman was interviewed and noted that the problem now is speed, "those Cigarette Boats". LOL Not a one involved. Just as last year's tragedy proved, it was the individual that made headlines, the rest was inferred.

Most law enforcement people can tell you pretty quickly what the problems are on the lake. Whether their budgets and time allow them to do anything about it is another matter altogether. Groups like Winfabs don't care about the MP budget, and obviously don't care much about the Captain Boneheads out there. If they did, they would devote their attention to the real safety issues, not demonizing a particular group of people or their boats.

So how does one proceed?

NWZ means just that.

150' violations are pretty easy to shoot video of

Many of the recent statements (this year) made by proponents of the law itself should be quite damming in a nation of laws and common sense.

A brief review of the last 30 years of history of accidents on Winni alone would reveal that someone wasn't telling the truth last year. It would also indicate where the main focus should be.

Also, adopt a Rule 6. Keep the provision in the current law, and make sure you promote the aspect of Safe and Prudent Speed. If someone's out there flying around at 80 mph between boats in a congested area, bust em.

This cannot be a Pro Speed movement. I don;t care who you are, you'll never win anything. Be Pro Safety, Pro Common Sense. If you want to be against anything in particular,

Be the

BOATERS AGAINST CAPTAIN BONEHEADS.

[BroadHopper]

This button will certainly reduce the space requirements. I want to thanks VtSteve for the last post.

[Airwaves]

VtSteve, that's a damn good letter to the editor and pamphlet material if I ever saw one!

Maybe even use Steve's post as a template email to send to legislators and the governor in order to urge the defeat of the bill to eliminate the sunset clause.

Nice Job

[VtSteve]

Key statements for follow-up, referenced from the original article in Post #1


"Bosworth talks at length about the
impact of the fast boats on the novice
boaters and the fact that even experienced
boaters have altered their use of
the lake because of their fear of those
who travel at high rates of speed."


"Pilliod suggests that “The culture of
the lake has started to change. That
was what happened on Lake George in
New York. Enforcement officials there
have told us that education has had as
much to do with slowing down traffic as
enforcement of the speed limit laws.”


It sounds to me like nothing has really changed. Even though traffic is down on the lake due to weather and economic realities, it appears people have altered their behavior on the lake to ward off Captain Boneheads. You can't argue against fear and perception, but you can argue facts. The facts to start with are pretty easy.

Earlier this year, the MP had a statement in an interview that the MP hopes people don;t get their expectation up, because speed wasn't that much of a problem to begin with. The detractors challenge this argument, but not face to face against the MP (which would undermine their cause).

The last statement above indicates that LE has told them that education has as much to do with slowing down traffic on Lake George as the law itself.

Here's where the semantics come into play. Absolutely nowhere will you see anyone reference the bowrider that crashed there last summer on land. Number one, it was not a GF boat, and number two, it was an intoxicated driver. You won't see much press on the PWC that crashed into the swim platform of a moored boat either.

There are parts of the law that can, and should, be kept in place. The MP needs something with teeth in it to stop suspected boaters. Suspected of being BUI, or suspected of being reckless and dangerous. No, this does not mean stopping a boat at night doing 20 mph and saying he was speeding.

The only way this works is if an organization is formed that truly is unbiased. One that encompasses all boaters. Kayakers, other paddlers, small boats, large boats, sailboats, everyone on the lake. It's an organization that should have contact with, and the admiration of, the MP headquarters. Not only an advocate of boaters, it should open up communications between the media, the MP, and the community at large. When the media seeks a statement, This organization should always be ready to speak up.

Guys like Bosworth go uncontested in the news, spouting their crappola whenever they see their agenda losing ground.

You get something like this BS in the paper.

"For Sheldon Bosworth,
spokesperson for WinnFAB
(Winnipesaukee
Family Alliance for Boating
Safety), the data is
important."

A pretty narrow definition of Safety. A cursory review of their website shows that they've done nothing but be a Proponent of the SL law. It kind of reminds me of the of 55 mph debates. Remember that there would be "Blood In The Streets" if the highway speed limit was raised to 65 mph? Yup, their gone. LEO's concentrate on the real offenders, for the most part. Since the change, highway safety has been fine overall.

If Mr. Bosworth was at all interested in safety, his organization would do more than just advocate for the SL law. Perhaps they should just be replaced by an organization that really cares.

[Bear Islander]

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Bear Islander I call BS on that one. That case has not been tried yet, and you are not the Judge or the Jury. So leave it out. This latest move shows Winnfabs for what they really are. An Extremist Group, period, the end. Word on the street is they have already drawn up a bill aimed at boats larger than 30 ft, So called Wake makers, definitely aimed at cabin cruisers, no doubt they are going to claim, erosion, fear of big wakes etc.... These people need to be shut down.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO! (a famous line from Animal House). Well it ain't over now, that's for sure.

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

May very well be BI, and I do understand and respect your statement. But even in your post, you reference "last year's fatal accident". It involved a single cruiser-type vessel, not a go fast boat. It also, from all indications so far, did not involve a very high rate of speed. If the SL had been in place at that point in time, I defy anyone to "seriously" state that the accident would not have occurred. Same with the other "infamous accident", also at a fairly slow speed.

I know, and I'm pretty sure you know, that the outcome would have been a very positive thing had both sides really focused on the problems, not the solutions. I really would like to see an organization that had everyone under one umbrella. It would have served the public well. But in this economy, and what I feel will be much higher boat prices in the future, all of this may very well be a moot argument.

As LI on the other thread pointed out, some middle ground should be found. Some think that people like myself are part of the small minority of GFBL people. I know my boat can at times do 55 or so, but it's not that fast, nor loud at all. I have a standard Alpha drive with UW exhaust. It's a cuddy cabin for crying out loud. It's a typical mischaracterization, but an organized one. Say it enough, and it will stick. There are very few (from what I've seen) GFBL boaters on these threads. What, maybe a dozen max?

A major point of those opposing the law was to try and get people fixated on the problems. The majority of proponents wanted you to focus your attention on one particular group of people, and ignore the rest. It's an argument of perception, an argument where a minority is singled out as being the root cause of all evil, facts be dammed. It's an argument that was successfully refuted south of NE, where it was clearly shown that proponents of a SL law targeted an area that was, in fact already a NW zone. Members of a certain Yacht club, were also shown on camera speeding through this NWZ in their YC boats, and operating too close to other boaters at the same time.

But that's neither here nor there. Even if the SL law is maintained, permanent or otherwise, something has to be done about safety. I don;t think anyone seriously expects proponents of the SL law to even be in the same room when a safety discussion occurs. They rarely (if ever) participate in any discussions concerning the infamous Captain Bonehead. A very interesting aspect of this discussion I might add. To the point where some SL proponents think there is peace and harmony on the lake now, whereas others have experienced the same old situations as in the past.

Hint: If things are admitted to be bad now, with decreased boat traffic, then what have they accomplished? Perhaps the recent spat of better weather will cause APS to update his thread that shows details of the numbers of boats, seemingly updated on the hour.

[BroadHopper]

The defunct group did more than what WINFABS could ever do in the name of SAFETY. The group encourage MP to put out 150' bouys outside of pubic docks to make it visible what 150' really is.
They also sponsor the No Wake Zone between Eagle Island and Governor's Island. One member even put out No Wake signs in the Weirs Channel!
One of the rules they were going to sponsor was to make the area between Cattle landing and Bear Island a no wake on weekends. There were other rules and regulations to spoinsor and I am not going to elaborate.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

OK Don, thanks for the message. Would you be opposed to an "opposers thread"?

[BroadHopper]

It seems like everyone here oppose the SL. Except for Bear Islander.

Don, I don't see the Thanks button.

[Bear Islander]

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

I wasn't aware anyone was in denial over the accident. Can you enlighten some of us that perhaps are a little foggy on the details?

1) What exactly never happened, and who said it would never happen? What happened?


2) What other Speed-Related accidents have occurred? Do you have a running list? With Details?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

In what way was that "accident" speed related ... in the sense that the SL, if followed, would have been applicable and prevented the "accident" ?

[Pineedles]

Do you mean that if the speed of the boat was under 25 mph that there would have not been a death? Or do you mean there would not have been a crash? Or, are you saying that last year's posts by some folks, said that a crash like occurred would have nothing to do with speed? I'm confused.

[fatlazyless]

Here in New Hampshire, a 25 year old male can kill 3 people and badly injure a forth and the New Hampshire supreme court can declare him to not be a negligent car driver because "for some unknown reason he strayed across the center line for two seconds on Route 49 in Thornton in June 2006 and struck head-on, two Harley Davidsons with two married couples."

It can be somewhat reasonably argued that three deaths are three times worse than one death.

If and when the NHRBA president's trial goes to court, it will be interesting to watch the legal chess game that plays out between the Belknap county attorney and the defendant. Any verdict is possible now, considering what happened with the Thornton catastrophe?

[Bear Islander]

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

[SIKSUKR]

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

Liberal crap?? Guess it depends on point of view. They remind me of birthers.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

[VtSteve]

It would appear ELCHASE, that you aren't paying attention. Many people have responded to threads this year indicating that the same problems that existed before, exist today. People have pointed out and described specific incidents on the lake, quite a few of them I might add, where they did not feel safe and have had to alter their boating style to protect themselves.

I know it's convenient to focus on what you consider to be fast enough in a boat, opinions vary. But this quote from you is a prime example of not getting it.

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

It is Broke, and no, people cannot feel safe anytime on the lake. Anybody can go to Winfabs and read their propaganda. But people that share your viewpoint as stated, do not and will not participate in discussions of these problems. I might reiterate an rather inconvenient truth, again. A very select few people on these forums own boats that can do 60 mph, or even 50 mph. What you don't want to admit is that this is not the issue. You can say it is, but that does not make it so. The MP themselves know this, most everyone does. If you have a beef with the people themselves or their boats in particular, state so. Everyone discusses these things pretty freely, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Participate in the Captain Bonehead thread and make us believers. There are obviously many out there that do not share your belief that all is safe and wonderful on the water. Perhaps you should at least show an interest in their stories?

At least give some consideration to what's being said about unsafe boating on the lake as it is today.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Absolutely BI, I might only add that somewhere between staying still and under 25 mph would be the ideal in that situation. If you Had to be on the lake that night, headway speed and more than one lookout would be the safe way to go.

People have been cited in traffic accidents for doing 50 mph or so on an interstate in a snow storm. Too fast for conditions. It's been used in many courts in boating accidents as well, successfully.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

[MAXUM]

As I have posted before on this very subject, no law(s) can ever legislate responsibility. I don't believe the speed limit is making the lake any safer than it was before, nor is it stopping those who want to go fast from doing so. After all the lengths I've seen stupidity taken in regards to operation far exceed the amount of laws that could potentially be written to forbid each and every discreet act. Additionally I might add that most of the idiotic behavior I've witnessed had little to do with speed and more to do with throwing any kind of prudent judgment right out the window.

The last thing I think anyone wants to see is a bunch of legislators in Concord that become "ban" happy as exhibited by our neighbors south of the border. Please enough is enough... a simple reckless provision is enough if enforced.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

BI- my response was to Elchase. You and I were saying the same thing, I believe. My point was that the SL could have been 15 MPH and on that night it would have been too fast for the conditions.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Yup and would have been since 1981 ....


270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/...0/270-29-a.htm


However all of this skirts the question as to how this incident speaks to relevance of the 25 MPH limit. It doesn't. "Reasonable and prudent" was an attempt by those opposed the HB162 to stop a set MPH limit. It was rejected as such and only included in HB847 as an adjunct to the 25 MPH limit. As such it's redundant with the RSA above.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

Bear Islander. I have read all of your posts and lets just agree to disagree on the speed limit issue.

However.
1. the fat lady has sung for 2 years. Currently they go away at the end of 2010 so it may be premature to say "they are here to stay"

2. Please do not use the tragic accident, which is still pending, as a pawn either for or against the speed limit debate. Let it play out on its own and we will then see the "proven" causes

3. I will not disagree with you on the compromise you propose. I don't like it but I can go along with it. Unfortunately I think it would be again used by some (not saying you) as a tool to try to put the limits on the entire lake.

Carry on.

[malibu]

I would like to reiterate what others are saying about the SL and safety. The truth of the matter is the lake is no safer now than it was without a SL. If you were out on the water the past two weekends you would see this first hand. We need to stop wasting time and resources on what doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Put a MP boat in every bay on the weekends and pull over the boneheads that continually break the laws we all ready have. Just the MP presence will make people think twice.

Malibu

[Bear Islander]

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

My contention is where you state "reasonable and prudent". There was an accident, the boat hit an island, there was a fatality. Whether going 10mph or 30mph it is safe to say the boats operation was not reasonable and prudent.

That being said, we can "what if" the accident to death (which has already happened) saying limits would have prevented it is purely speculation and an opinion.

Hopefully this time around the SL debate will be based on fact and not speculation.

So again lets agree not to go down the speculation path and argue the particulars. Such as How many tickets have been issued? Has the Marine Patrol seen a difference this year opposed to last year? etc.

Actual Data...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA?

I also agree that the only thing the trial will prove is if she were drunk as well as going too fast for the conditions.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI...

How on earth can you make a statement like that?? Your contradicting yourself! In one paragraph your saying a speed limit would have made a difference, in the next you stating that the boats operation was not reasonable or prudent for the conditions! I dont see how you can argue that a speed limit would have mattered....

I am sure you agree that the 25MPH Speed Limit is not an absolute. There will be times and conditons on the lake when a speed much less than 25 MPH would be considered "reasonable and prudent".

The estimated speed at impact has not been released, (I am sure we will get that number in Oct) so we have no way of knowing if in fact she was traveling at a speed greater than 25 MPH! All conditions being equal, without knowing exactly how fast she was travelling, you really cant logically form an opinion if a 25MPH speed limit would have made a difference.

WinnFabs used the same argument for the Littlefield/Hartman accident. The NHMP accident team estimated that speed at 28 MPH!

All things being equal, It may be that she was travelling too fast for the conditions that night, and there is an existing rule for that. It's possible that she wasnt keeping a proper lookout (got a rule for that too) Its up for a JURY to decide what are the mitigating circumstances surrounding this accident to determine her innocence or guilt, not you, I or anyone else.

The only way one can ABSOLUTELY say the accident would not have happened was for that boat and those poor souls to have never left the dock that day!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA? ...

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

Just wondering BI, wouldn't hitting an island be deemed as Careless or Negligent? call me crazy...

Either way, this accident would not have been avoided by a speed limit, reasonable or prudent, careless or negligent - "in my opinion". You have "your opinion" so lets check the opinions and the speculation at the door and discuss what the speed limits have accomplished now that they have been in effect for the year, not what we think they could have accomplished when they weren't even in effect.

The speed limit debate has been opened up to discuss the results and if they should be continued so please lets keep on topic.


Hopefully that is clear enough...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

You're spot on with that comment. The previous law allowed way too much wiggle room by being ambiguous. The new wording is much more like a general Rule 6. They should have passed that change, and left it at that. I'll always support a "Reasonable and Prudent" law, no problems at all.

but..... and you knew there would be a butt somewhere

You go on to say

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

Fine, Then stop saying that "It's Clear To Me". It most certainly isn't clear to anyone. That's like saying that the murderer wouldn't have shot the person if he had adhered to the law. You also lose it on punish the abusers, then hope.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

I agree with you on all points there. The outcome of the trial is not something that SL supporters are anxiously awaiting. It's pretty apparent to most, if not all people, that something was done improperly on the boat that night. Even if it's something as innocent as they followed a GPS and trusted it when they couldn't see anything does not fly either. (BTW, just an example)

I agree with you're general premise that the wording changes in the new law are good ones, long time coming. Makes it easier to actually get a conviction. Unfortunately, when you went off in all directions during the SL debate, your most salient points were lost in a sea of boat wakes, NWZ's and other such rubbish. But you're too smart to not know that

At any rate, most of us agree with the bulk of the wording's intent, and also with the general framework of boating safety. Until the MP is not living hand to mouth, most of it is a moot discussion. The folks that are strict supporters of only the speed limits themselves? They have no data, never had any data, and can't even hang their hats on accidents that support their only cause. We know this because we'd be inundated with data on an hourly basis if they had something, anything.


I'd prefer to stay on track with the safety thread myself, at least it's constructive.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

Please stop hiding behind the words "Reasonable and Prudent". We all know HB847 is about so much more than that. Stop using the smoke and mirrors, please!

Until Jan 1, 2009 we had this:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

"Operate in a Reasonable and Prudent Manner" is just another way of saying "Do Not Operate in a Careless and Negligent Manner" in my opinion. You are just spinning things again for your agenda.

Quite frankly, I completely agree with Reasonable and Prudent. Those are great words. It is the 45 MPH limit during the day on the whole lake that is your fight.

My objective is Boating Safety, so I embrace Reasonable and Prudent operation for all vessels. However, before we had to operate in a manner that was not Careless and Negligent. I really do not see any real difference, except for while Careless and Neglient only effected power boats, reasonable and prudent effects all vessels, including sail boats and kayaks.

R2B

[OCDACTIVE]

What really is upsetting is if you read the article it says (the winfabs spokesman) states they do not have the time to wait for the data to be collected and must file legislation now.

This is an absolute 180 in comparisson to the reasons they fought for the testing and 2 year provision to begin with!!!

See give them an inch and they go for the mile....

It is beyond frustrating!

[VtSteve]

They did fight hard for the data, almost as hard as they fought to get a poll consisting of very broad language done.

They can't wait for any data because it shows nothing, just as it did last year. They openly accused the MP of not doing the job properly and of being biased. With the lake traffic down this summer, and hardly a mention of a ticket, much less a ton of them, what do they have? Same as always, an agenda with no data. If they were part of the Global Warming debate, god knows what kinds of laws they could get passed

Getting back to the BI support for the wording. It's important to understand the difference between the old and new wording.

Old:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


Try to take that one to court. So now you'd have a boater arguing that 24mph is safe and prudent because...... blah blah


New

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.


Specific, not vague and open to all kinds of legal interpretations. It also gives the MP the ability to bring into play that speed is important to the event. I disagree with BI that the new wording is all that important to last year's accident, although it most assuredly would have applied, and would make the prosecutor's job much easier. The prosecution apparently didn't have much problem coming up with multiple charges anyway.

But the wording is very good, and does not in anyway restrict anyone's ability to enjoy their craft on the lake. There may be cases where an MP interprets the conditions to be real, and may not be correct. But this wording has teeth, and will at least give the LEO's some help in getting a real bad guy off the water if there's one around. This is not a law that's aimed at someone innocently being only 100' away from a dock or boat, or just screws up without a foul. Hopefully, LEO's will use it prudently, and target those that really need it, like repeat offenders, habitual recklessness, that sort of thing. It also makes it easier to stop the drinks, which is important.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Well since Elchase refuses to elaborate on the unfounded pieces of data "80% of NH residents want this law" (in the supporter thread) which I have been told was a poll taken. I have to ask:

Where and whom did the poll, and how were the questions worded? Were these people polled a good sampling of boaters or just residents without boating experience? Not to mention it is again difficult to say 80% of the population from a poll because sampling does not constitute a unbiased % of the population. That would be like saying, lets not hold elections, lets just go by this Poll conducted by CNN.....

I have no problem with a supporter and opposer threads where people feel "safe" to discuss their own thoughts without opposition. What I have an issue with is people making remarks that go unquestioned that others can then go back and contitute as "fact".

The old saying " I read it on the internet / paper so it must be true " comes to mind.

I also invite elchase to answer the questions posed by myself and other posters that have been posed since the intial posts.

Is this a case of "Ring and Run"?

[Kracken]

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

LMAO!! very funny..

I understand no discussions no debates, however it shouldn't give your free rain to just post any piece of data and not state where it is from or how it was derived.. Otherwise anyone could turn and start making up %'s and posting them in the opposers thread as well.

Later on someone could go back and think they are accurate or others (not going to name names) could go and use many different pieces of different threads to try to prove a point.

I am just looking for checks and balances.

If you want to make your own thoughts and opinions known and state them there I am all for that and I believe that is what the ideology was for their inception. However if you go there to start pushing an agenda and making statements from others, data, facts, or supposed truths from others then you should be able to be called out on them.

I think that if we can not question these so called facts then the moderator should have anything not "opinions" or "personal experiences" removed from those threads.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I am just looking for checks and balances.

The checks and balances are all the other threads in this sub-forum that are open to you.

How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters?

I'm not seeing much productive discussion about the topic. This is not what I had in mind when I reopened it.

[OCDACTIVE]

[QUOTE=webmaster;102175]

How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters?

QUOTE]

Thank you Webmaster,

You have helped get to the heart of the topic. There is very little NEW data available. That is why I am very sceptical of data quoted in many of the posts and why see it as something to contest.

The 2 year trial law with a sunset provision was designed so actual data could be recorded on the "whole" lake and not just some test areas with "actual" consequences. This was the base line arguement for the intial law in the first place.

Now legistlation is trying to be hammered though where it has been stated on both sides that "data has yet to be collected".

This is why it is imperative to discuss the issue.

Without data, you are correct only the old arguments from past threads are there to be checked.

I am simply making sure that people do not quote information from the past without basis to do so now that it has been put back on the table.

There has already been data posed by the opposers (see Mee n Macs research) which show we are serious about discussing the topic at hand and not just rehashing old arguements.

Needless to say this is a very heated and controversal issue which will always lead to spirited debate that some take very personally because it directly effects their lifestyle at the place they have come know and love, no matter what side of the argument you are on.

[fatlazyless]

As most everyone knows, there is really no such thing as permanent for a law passed by the New Hampshire legislature. As the winds of state politics shift around the political compass, what gets a pass one year, can do a complete come-about and get repealed in the next year.

For many years up till November 2006, the Republicans were large and in charge at the NH State House. Also for many years, the NH Marine Trades Association, a lobbying group supported by a number of NH boat dealers, was a consistant contributor to Republican candidates across the state.

Not to worry.....things are definately looking up for the Republicans here in NH......witness the big Jeb Bradley, state senate win that took place last spring. How do you think Jeb will be voting if this current speed limit sunset scuttle makes it to the senate? Jeb will be saying that it is simply a solution look'n for a problem....and then pocket that NHMTA thousand dollars contribution! Not to worry!

Hey...when the kayak connected businesses want to contribute to a Democrat....all the Dem politicos want is a box of granola and some yogurt....different strokes for different folks.....ahem

[Kracken]

change you can believe in.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by elchase

I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Speed is a Relative Term.

45mph in your boat maybe fast.

45mph in my boat is just a tad over cruise speed and the superior hull design makes it seem as you are only going 25mph.

Yes Speed is Addictive!!!!

I agree 100% with Safe Boating for everyone on the lake and I have done so for the last 10+ years. I am fanatical over the 150 rule and would never do a high speed blast in one of the bays or with boat traffic in the area.


HOWEVER, Speed Limit or No Speed Limit if I am in the Broads all alone and I feel it is safe to do so 50mph to 60+mph will occur often...


Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

[OCDACTIVE]

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Yes we know but for reasons that had little to do with speed.

[pm203]

It is absolutely incredible that Rep Pilliod and his supporters would file such a bill so early and only after a few months of actual boating season. It really shows what they are really made of and their true intentions. One can only hope that the people see them for what they are and hopefully question any further bills on their agenda. Their total lack of respect for the state and abuse of their powers for personal pleasure is unacceptable. Good moral fiber seems to be in short supply when it comes to this group and their actions.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

It is absolutely incredible that Rep Pilliod and his supporters would file such a bill so early and only after a few months of actual boating season. It really shows what they are really made of and their true intentions. One can only hope that the people see them for what they are and hopefully question any further bills on their agenda. Their total lack of respect for the state and abuse of their powers for personal pleasure is unacceptable. Good moral fiber seems to be in short supply when it comes to this group and their actions.

Filing now isn't really that early. A bill filed now will go to the legislature this winter and possibly be signed by the Governor next spring. If you wait another year to file it would probably mean the current speed limit would expire BEFORE the new bill becomes law. That would be very confusing.

If the current speed limit is to be extended then the only reasonable way to do it is for the the speed limit to be renewed before it expires in about 16 months.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Filing now isn't really that early. A bill filed now will go to the legislature this winter and possibly be signed by the Governor next spring. If you wait another year to file it would probably mean the current speed limit would expire BEFORE the new bill becomes law. That would be very confusing.

If the current speed limit is to be extended then the only reasonable way to do it is for the the speed limit to be renewed before it expires in about 16 months.

BI is right... that is why we need a compromise bill filed instead of this one.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Do you believe in a compromised limit though. I could deal with what Woodsy stated a 65/35 type limit. Although to be fair Woodsy said 30 at night I disagree and think it should be a strict 35. I think one of the best posts I've seen in all of this was his post stating how many boats on the lake can actually go over 65 in the first place. Not many in case your keeping score.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Do you believe in a compromised limit though. I could deal with what Woodsy stated a 65/35 type limit. Although to be fair Woodsy said 30 at night I disagree and think it should be a strict 35. I think one of the best posts I've seen in all of this was his post stating how many boats on the lake can actually go over 65 in the first place. Not many in case your keeping score.

I could live with 55/35.

I don't see how the number of boats on the lake that can go over 45 changes anything. Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I could live with 55/35.

I don't see how the number of boats on the lake that can go over 45 changes anything. Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

Oh man we are sooooo close I feel like a car salesman here but you give me 5 one way and I'll give you the other 5. How's 60/30 sound to you? I'd consider that a compromise. Not that it amounts to a hill of beans because I don't think the NH Legislature reads the forum.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

Which of course you know has nothing to do with safety or speed. It is in place to stop sonic booms, it's a noise ordinance.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Which of course you know has nothing to do with safety or speed. It is in place to stop sonic booms, it's a noise ordinance.

Who said a speed limit is only about safety?

Water quality, tourism, fair distribution of public resources, erosion, noise, conservation, loon mortality, children's camps, the direction the lake community is headed in. These are all reasons to have a speed limit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... I don't think the NH Legislature reads the forum.

I know for a fact that some of them do.

[jrc]

Of course BI, you have honestly reported your motivation for a speed limit for some time.

But others have a different motivation:

Originally Posted by elchase

We had a good chuckle today when some clown in a huge offshore boat got taken down a few pegs by the MP.
...The guy was clearly starved of attention as a child and was showing the world that the speed limit was not going to cramp his style. ... Now he's crawling along with his tail between his legs .... What good is going so fast if nobody can see you?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

Of course BI, you have honestly reported your motivation for a speed limit for some time.

But others have a different motivation:

Very well said... While I do not always agree with BI, he has always stayed true to his beliefs. Some of which I personally feel are unfounded but that is what discussions and debates are for....

As mentioned others have a completely different agenda and are not willing to particiapte in civil conversations.

[EricP]

Well if they read the forum then they apparently don't care to listen to the majority and instead fall victim to the fear factor, which is unfounded. They should also know they won't get my vote next time and hopefully others here will let them know where their votes are going. I sat in the public meeting in Concord and couldn't believe what I was hearing, mostly rhetoric and catch phrases, like the wild west, and such. Anway I hope this move gets defeated as wellas those who voted it in, I don't want to be represented by people who can't see through the bs.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by EricP

Well if they read the forum then they apparently don't care to listen to the majority and instead fall victim to the fear factor, which is unfounded. They should also know they won't get my vote next time and hopefully others here will let them know where their votes are going. I sat in the public meeting in Concord and couldn't believe what I was hearing, mostly rhetoric and catch phrases, like the wild west, and such. Anway I hope this move gets defeated as wellas those who voted it in, I don't want to be represented by people who can't see through the bs.

First, in NO WAY do I condone a speed limit. I go 65 ALL THE TIME in my jet ski regardless of the speed limit. I do it the same way I've done it for the past eight years, properly and safely.

The law is completely irrelevant to a majority feeling on the topic. It's about what SOME (few) believe is a safety issue. If it was about majority, this world would be screwed hahaha. For instance, I think you would probably see a majority of people for 75mph on I-93 rather than 65mph...Gotta draw the line somewhere.

It truly is a hard topic/discussion. I personally (and I'm sure some will agree) believe the speed limit is the LEAST of problems on this lake. Too many operators buy new boats, rent boats, etc. without knowing how to operate them. They don't educate themselves, they aren't familiar with the lake, etc. These are the problems (along with the obvious drinking and operating) that we face. Speed limits are irrelevant to this issue. The lake will never be perfect, but as stated many times, if the laws in place could simply be enforced regularly, many will feel safer and be happier.

I am FOR a speed limit after dusk. There needs to be a line drawn there. It is extremely dark on the lake. Proper judgement needs to be used, as stated in the law currently. Plain and Simple.

Here is a new thought (I think)...How about simply enacting a Lake Winnipesaukee License. Can't operate on the lake without proper certification. The exam should be relevant to all of the rules that apply to Lake Winnipesaukee. Just a suggestion...disagree and I'll take no hard feelings.

Wow, it's way too hard to convey one's thoughts and feelings about this issue by typing. In a normal conversation, I would have much more to bring to the table. However, I simply don't have the time to write a novel. :-)

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

Here is a new thought (I think)...How about simply enacting a Lake Winnipesaukee License. Can't operate on the lake without proper certification. The exam should be relevant to all of the rules that apply to Lake Winnipesaukee. Just a suggestion...disagree and I'll take no hard feelings.

The boating certificate was supposed to take care of this. I took a ride down to Lakeport Landing earlier today to get gas. Passed several boats that appeared to be within 150' of boats near them. I am amazed that they get this close to others at speed. It daned on me that some of these people come from other lakes in other states that have no such rules and they are used to getting this close to other boats at speed and think nothing of it. This doesn't absolve them, but just explains things. Then we wondered how many we saw actually have there certificates. We saw one guy on a SeaDoo towing 2 kids in a towable. No spotters! Talk about a violation and safetly problem! He obviously doesn't have a boating certificate or deos he? That is part of the problem, and he definitely wasn't speeding.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Very well said... While I do not always agree with BI, he has always stayed true to his beliefs. Some of which I personally feel are unfounded but that is what discussions and debates are for....

As mentioned others have a completely different agenda and are not willing to particiapte in civil conversations.

Absolutely agree. I am on opposite side of the SL law but totally respect BI as he makes no bones about how he feels. This man has gone on adventures that I will only dream about. Big respect factor there.He knows very well my passion for this issue in the past two years.When he went on his Antarctic excursion this winter, I followed it and e-mailed him. He was gracious enough to return the mail from below the Antarctic circle without any attitude. I had a little different attitude myself after that. Fight the good fight and above all, keep it civil because yes, people think different than me. I don't quite understand that yet though!

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by tis

Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

When you vote nannys to the legislator, you get nanny laws. Narrow-minded people who think they know best. They're the ones who told their kids "Don't play outside, you might get hurt". And "Don't keep score -- someone's feelings might get hurt if they lose".

They grow up believing everything is evil, and there are bullies behind every corner. And only they can solve the world's problems. They're basically control-freaks, and when they get legislative power, they abuse it. And they certainly don't understand what it means to be a free American. In fact, I doubt any of them really understand America, and certainly not New Hampshire.

How did they get this power? From the rest of us. We voted them in. Apathy. Or stupidity on our part. Do you expect them to keep any promises? No way -- they have their power, their agenda, and they will do everything they can to permantly install the nanny state -- for our own good, of course!

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

[ApS]

My total absense in this thread is due to the hysteria in the opening post:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Given this article in the Laconia Daily Sun today and the quote from the bill’s sponsor regarding not waiting until next year to gather data…and the fact that the bill to eliminate the sunset of the {speed limit law} will be filed NEXT MONTH!

A bill's sponsor would know on what day to file a bill.

[fatlazyless]

So, what goes around....blah, blah, blah........comes around.


Back in 1989 the NH state legislature passed thhe state statue which makes a jetski that is 11' or longer to be consdered a boat and not a jetski. NH is the one and only state with a statute like this.


If the legislatute of 400 state reps and 24 state senators can pass that law, then for them to consider a speed limit is within their relm. It all depends on whether or not the speed limit can get a 50%+ majority.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

My total absense in this thread is due to the hysteria in the opening post:

But you still had to post pointing out an absense.

Just razzing you a little

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

"...First...I go 65 ALL THE TIME in my jet ski regardless of the speed limit..."

This season, we've been reading several similar quotes that indicate an attitude against boating regulations unique to New Hampshire.

How is the attitude of "Cap'n 'B'" different?

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

.....

Well they must be really mad, because Friday I saw several go fast boats in the broads traveling in the 60-70mph range(one looked alot like me). There was not another boat within 1500' feet when I saw them doing it, but I am sure some type of horror or emotional scarring occurred!!!!

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

This season, we've been reading several similar quotes that indicate an attitude against boating regulations unique to New Hampshire.

How is the attitude of "Cap'n 'B'" different?

I'm glad you know the attitude of cap'n B. You must be pretty good friends with him. Which, in my eyes, would leave me to believe he's rubbed off on you a bit. I boat regularly (over 20 years) on the lake and know the lake extremely well. If I recall correctly, unless stated otherwise, I always assumed a "cap'n B" was someone who made dumb actions that jeopardized safety. I always operate with safety first.

Tell me you have never gone over the speed limit in your car, rolled a stop sign, been within 150 ft. of another boater OR a no wake zone while making a wake, etc...SAFETY FIRST. If you want to regulate me, then become MP or call them when you find me breaking the laws.

How about a nice glass of {removed}

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

"...I..always assumed a "cap'n B" was someone who made dumb actions that jeopardized safety..."

Cap'n "B" can be "picking and choosing" which of NH's laws to break.

Cap'n "B" also may be ignorant of NH's unique boating laws.

Of those in the latter category, I can feel some compassion.

I drive through 13 states twice a year, and have no idea what laws I may be breaking as I drive. In Florida, you may not drive with your "flashers" on. In New York, there are places that you are required to!

For tunnels? Headlights ON! (Or Headlights OFF!).

In this past decade, Florida permitted the transport of a murdered body in the trunk of one's car.

Florida won't permit any front-windshield stickers: North Carolina does allow stickers.

Do I need to get into the various states' window-tint laws or the transportation of firearms laws?

Originally Posted by Shreddy

"...I always operate with safety first..."

Yes, of course you do.

Among those in observance of New Hampshire's laws for Lake Winnipesaukee , 50 percent would place themselves into the "above average" class.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In this past decade, Florida permitted the transport of a murdered body in the trunk of one's car.

For the record, a similar law applies still in NH. You can have a dead body in the trunk of your car and you DO NOT have to pop the trunk for them, per my law professor. They can search the rest of your car, however, not the trunk.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

For the record, a similar law applies still in NH. You can have a dead body in the trunk of your car and you DO NOT have to pop the trunk for them, per my law professor. They can search the rest of your car, however, not the trunk.

In NH, LEOs need a search warrant to search your car. However, they are warant to search your vehicle if they found probable cause, such as an open alcohol container, or smell drugs etc.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

In NH, LEOs need a search warrant to search your car. However, they are warant to search your vehicle if they found probable cause, such as an open alcohol container, or smell drugs etc.

Correct, however. They CANNOT search your trunk without consent. I believe this is with or without a search warrant.

[witchboat]

It seems strange to me that the only lake with the room to run is the one restricted. I can go to a small lake like Wentworth and do 60 mph no problem. But out in the broads with all that room we are restricted. Make no sense to me

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Shreddy

Correct, however. They CANNOT search your trunk without consent. I believe this is with or without a search warrant.

I'm 99.999% sure that with a warrant they don't need your consent. That's kinda the whole purpose of the warrant.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by witchboat

It seems strange to me that the only lake with the room to run is the one restricted. I can go to a small lake like Wentworth and do 60 mph no problem. But out in the broads with all that room we are restricted. Make no sense to me

Agreed, however it seems unlikely that the other smaller NH lakes will tolerate being the dumping grounds for the GFBL's. Suffice it to say that in a few years all of NH's lakes will have similar speed limits.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Agreed, however it seems unlikely that the other smaller NH lakes will tolerate being the dumping grounds for the GFBL's. Suffice it to say that in a few years all of NH's lakes will have similar speed limits.

it was discussed at the sand bar on Winnisquam every weekend. Winnisquam folks say 'Bring it on'! Winnisquam will take all the businesses that are suffering on Winnipesaukee!