In the Spirit of Compromise....

[Woodsy]

I had ALOT of reading to catch up on! Darn being busy at work! LOL!

The original "COMPROMISE" to HB-847 was the 2 year "Sunset Clause" inserted into the bill to allow the NHMP to collect data on the enforcement of a speed limit from a practical "hands on" point of view. Is the speed limit necessary? How difficult is it to write a ticket? Do they hold up in court? Cost of enforcement? Cost of training? Etc...

WinnFabs has jumped the gun a bit (in poor taste I might add) by attempting to have HB-847 made into permanent law before the second year of data collection even begins. The NHMP would not even get a chance to compile and evaluate the data from this year (summer ‘09) prior to a legislative vote on HB-847! If anything they should have asked for (and been granted) a 1 year extension of the ‘Sunset Clause”. This idea was actually floated by the NHMP.

The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages!

In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out, but it will need input from both sides and the NHMP as they are the ones tasked with enforcement. It is really easy to sit back and write a law and task someone else with enforcing it. The problems arise when it comes down to actually enforcing the law.

I do kind of agree with Bear Islander on a couple of things… I think that a compromise can and SHOULD be worked out, and I think that anybody should BE SAFE canoeing or kayaking anywhere on the lake. Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this. We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now.

If it were up to Camp Directors, (in their perfect world) nobody else would be using the lake at the same time as the children. However that’s not the case. They have to SHARE the lake with everyone else, just like everyone else. The right of the children to be on the lake does not ***** the rights of others to be on the lake. It is the job of the Camp Director to insure the safety of the children. I think that a child getting run over by any boat at any speed is a concern (and it very well should be a concern), I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake. No child at any Children’s Camp on Lake Winnipesaukee has EVER been run over by a speeding boat! I am sure that swamping and capsizing due to large wakes (and the resultant injuries) is much more common occurrence.

To sum it all up…

I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given. Yet we still see Capt. Bonehead driving every type of boat. Greater funding so that NHMP can mount “fly the flag” patrols in the congested areas more often. Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce! More NHMP patrols will mean more Capt. Boneheads stopped for other violations. Noise, 150’ rule etc…. Not too sure of where the funding should come from especially considering power boaters were just hit with an increase. I have a few ideas but they can be saved for another thread.

I think a statewide night time limit is without question a necessity. Night is when most of the serious accidents occur. I think 25 MPH is too slow and it adversely impacted lots of people. People can debate the number till the cows come home but my vote is for 30 MPH… it gives you leeway to 35 or so before you are in any real trouble with the NHMP.

I think a daytime limit is a waste of time… your visibility is measured in MILES! However, in the spirit of compromise my vote would be for a 65 MPH limit. This allows 99% of the boaters to use their boats as they wish. There are a handful of boats that can exceed 65, but no doubt they will limit their activities to the Broads as they do now.

You cannot have different speeds for different places… it becomes an enforcement nightmare for the NHMP. (Boater: I was past the appropriate marker when I was doing 65… NHMP: No you weren’t, from my point of view you were still behind it) It creates a he said-she said with no clearly delineated position. This option was bantered about during the original HB-162 debates and the NHMP was not at all interested.

Noise is an issue, and I think the noise laws should be strictly enforced! (See NHMP Funding above) Captains Call exhaust should be legal as long as you can pass the sound test BOTH ways (loud and quiet)!

Woodsy

[Rattlesnake Guy]

This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.

[jrc]

OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.

I do agree with you that it can be done at a price. I did put on some of the heavier / costly mufflers. They have no moving parts so that it does not cause unnecessary back flow, however they do keep the sound below the legal limits. The only issue is that they stick out close to 18 inches and almost got in the way of my hydro steering.

What I am driving at is it can be done to current standards, however it can become very difficult if not impossible to go lower based on manufactoring standards.

I agree we need more enforcement, but I disagree that nothing is being done. I have seen 2 times in the past year that people were questioned due to their pipes. (not my boat) but I was in one that was.

Also, in one case they were sent to have it tested.

Somewhat ironic however, one testing element is to go by a dock at full throttle with an MP officer in your boat while it is being measured at the dock.
Why measure at full throttle if it is over 45mph?

Isn't that Nonapplicable now?

[NoRegrets]

I am not sure about this year but 3 years ago a friend was stopped for noise and had to go over to Guilford for a sound test. The MP was polite and set up an appointment for the following Saturday.

[jrc]

The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test.

If this fixed the problem and now the boat was quiet, then great the law works. But some people would "borrow" mufflers for the test and a few days later be back to loud.

The new law allows a standing still test at idle. But can they do this on the spot? Or do they still need to schedule a test?

Personally I think there are two situations:

A boat comes from the factory with an exhaust system, the factory certifies that it produces a certain noise level. If this noise level is under the limits then done deal.

If you modify your exhaust, then you become the factory. You should have to have it measured before you put it on the lake.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test.

If this fixed the problem and now the boat was quiet, then great the law works. But some people would "borrow" mufflers for the test and a few days later be back to loud.

The new law allows a standing still test at idle. But can they do this on the spot? Or do they still need to schedule a test?

Personally I think there are two situations:

A boat comes from the factory with an exhaust system, the factory certifies that it produces a certain noise level. If this noise level is under the limits then done deal.

If you modify your exhaust, then you become the factory. You should have to have it measured before you put it on the lake.

Hey JRC.. If you don't mind I am going to quote you and head over to the Sound regulation as it relates to speed limits thread. That way we don't clog up the compromise thread with sound restrictions etc.

[NoRegrets]

"The "come for a test next week" law, was kind of a joke, right? If you were going to fail the test, you could always add mufflers for the test." partial quote from JRC

Yes you are right. A few years ago the marine patrol had compassion for my friend and did allow him time to replace his mufflers then get certified. I am not seeing this as a bad thing but a type of "back to humanity" approach. A compromise starts with reactions that are not hardened. There was no danger present so maybe it was appropriate to allow time to adjust the problem. Now the art of compromise is a more difinitive win / loose proposition. We are debating specific hard values. This seems the only way laws are created. It seems that we no longer value the intent of the law but inforce the technicality of it and the process.

I hope the state stops and refudiates any further attempts of certain people to short cut the two year data collection and then evaluation process.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.

That's the trouble with the measurement of sound: The boat I hear at six miles is certainly not making the sound of my computer's fan! Nearly all boats in the offending category continue to make their distinctive noise even when passing behind either Rattlesnake Island and Welch Island!

When it comes to noise, anyone lakeside can readily detect the "sympathetic vibrations" occurring in a sundeck's wood platform made by the passing "legal" noisemaker.

"Noise" needs to be tightened up on this lake—not "readjusted" by the commercial interests responsible for our present dilemma.

IMHO.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out..."

Why can't I call this the "Woodsy-Compromise"?

If you're selling an item for $200, and I make an offer of $100. "You say, 'in the spirit of compromise' let's make it $225".

What "tweaking" of 45/25 results in the compromises that we've been seeing on these pages? "A Compromise" would be 75/15!

(Try getting that one passed)

BTW: One sensible compromise would be to permit "Unlimited speeds" everywhere on the Lake between Labor Day and Memorial Day.

(Many could "live" with that one!)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages...!"

I have no difficulty refuting ghosts, but too often I perceive that some "drivers" don't pay attention to what lies directly in front of them. (Namely, my boat!)

While trying not to sound like Clint Eastwood, I ask myself, " Do I feel lucky today?"

Unfortunately, the answer would be "yes": It is only through luck that I can boat safely. I perceive that my luck has increased, mostly because fewer opportunities for mischief exist this season.

This year, while I perceive boating traffic is 'way down from last year, I've managed to make myself safer through pro-active warnings. I'm also perceiving that the vast majority of boats are observing the new speed regulation during the daylight hours. (At least when I'm out there observing—I currently have a houseful of guests).

One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:

"Something noisy and bad is approaching".

The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this...We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now..."

1) "Stats" are collected for collisions over $2000: How many kayaks are exempted from "stats" by a $2000 threshhold? (An "exact" number, please).

Hmmm. Could it be every last one of them is going uncounted?

2) Today, many are hugging the shoreline untill they perceive the necessity to cross to other shorelines.

3) Just minutes before RG Gal and RG Guy arrived here on the 20th, I watched a kayaker skirt a large group of young kids swimming about 150' from shore. She (the kayaker) gave them another 100' without a thought of any danger to herself—and why should she?

4) Seen the latest fashion statement in kayaking?

A kayaking neighbor (from Camp Ossipee) showed up this month with a flourescent orange hat with flourescent orange paddles. What is it, do you suppose, he "feels"?

IF, as you say, "you can see for miles", why would a kayaker try to look like an endangered roadside worker?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake..."

Canoes and kayaks are growing in numbers, but the Sailfish have disappeared. Although Sailfish can still be fabricated by the DIY-er, I haven't seen one on this lake in decades.

Alton's "Camp Kabeyun" has the Sailfish's successor, the Sunfish—a much safer and even more visible boat. But even that camp's boats and kids are still endangered by "drivers" who operate irresponsibly using tons of iron, steel, and fiberglass.

For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...To sum it all up…I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given...Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce!

They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Many could "live" with that one!)




One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:




The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.



For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?


They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!

You must certainly have loved our discussions of the dangerous boaters, the Boneheads, even from last year. And yes, I agree, peer pressure should come from those that "Should" realize who their worst enemies are. Same as always.

How about that enforcement?

Most of us don't condone that type of activity APS. I know for sure that, strictly speaking for myself, I'm as always as careful as I can be out in large sections of water, so as not to get complacent. I spotted a rowboat while on the Mount last Saturday. He was about a mile and a half East of Glendale in the open water. A kayak would have been much harder to see. I worry about things like that, so I'm overly cautious. But if the day ever comes when I can't see a sailboat from afar, I'll hang up my boat keys for good (or check into Lasix)

Believe it or not APS, many of us aren't that far off in what we want, and how careful we are. Certainly, there are differences in perspective, but not the reality. I think you'd be surprised at how cautious and responsible most of the SL opponents are on this board. I for one, know that my eyes couldn't keep up (safely), with an 80 mph boat anymore. I also know that when I was a little guy, I had the common sense not to row or paddle in the middle of the lake.

Somewhere in the middle, lies true wisdom.

[Kracken]

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

LOL,,,, Best not get him started... He does fine without egging him on.

[Kracken]

I am not trying to get him started I was just curious if that was the boat.

If I was trying to rile him up I would point out a 25 foot boat would actually be responsible for 1.6 acres.

For a 25 foot boat to be responsible for an acre then we would have to change the 150 rule to a 117 foot 6 inch rule.

OK so it’s a slow day at work.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Kracken

I am not trying to get him started I was just curious if that was the boat.

If I was trying to rile him up I would point out a 25 foot boat would actually be responsible for 1.6 acres.

For a 25 foot boat to be responsible for an acre then we would have to change the 150 rule to a 117 foot 6 inch rule.

OK so it’s a slow day at work.

Not only that but with this post you are actually starting to SOUND like APS. I almost didn't understand it then upon second glance it registered.

[NoRegrets]

You guys are great! This forum is great fun, informative, and a major diversion as I am supposed to be working and adding value in return for my salary……….

Acres Per Second – To sum up what you are saying (but not trying to put words in your mouth) is it that you see no difference in this years boating except less traffic? If so then I agree the speed limit is not doing anything. Your posting reads like a pressure relief valve blowing off steam. There were many real examples to your points that we have all witnessed. I hope it served its purpose and I appreciate the time it took to create. It was well written and painted a picture that almost makes me want to stay away from the lake.

Even though all these events occur I will not shy away from using the lake.

I am aware that some are trying to return the lake to a quiet reclusive haven but that conflicts with the many people who like to “cut loose” when they go to resort areas. It is interesting to read threads where some embrase the risk of water balloon launchers and how others are appalled that they are even allowed to exist. There are many personal perspectives on the “threshold of sanity”.

Planes fly over, cars go by, motorcycles with questionable exhausts surround us, dogs bark, wolves howl, lightening explodes, loud base banging music from boom-box-cars (remember the old days when a certain class of people carried these massive devices on their shoulders? Now they sit in them!), accidents will happen and yes, people will be harmed. We can not stop or change progress (could be an interesting debate).

Where is it written that silence is a legal right? We do not expect to be shaken out of bed or of the porch like you mentioned and there is a thread to address this and I do sympathize with you and your party’s unpleasant experience.

I just finished reading the simple law "HB - 847 Final Version" to see what type of provision it had for analysis. THERE WERE NONE! The sponsors of the bill should be embarrassed with the final outcome and how little the law does to benefit the lake.

How do we come to a view of collecting statistics to validate “speed”? Safety is an ending ***** card in the play but the statistics do not support it. Noise, land erosion, and many categories of bonehead moves seem to be better plays for real statistical analysis.

A few more hours of work and I can start the commute to d'lake....

[Seaplane Pilot]

The drama is incredible!

You definitely deserve one of these:

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

I saw this boat today, it's about 50' long, and was roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin with a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feeling of being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by pm203

That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I saw this boat today, about 50', roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin wih a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feelng a being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It's was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.

Amazing. Is that boat in a "Totally different League" or what? So is the boat huge and noisy or can you hardly hear it? Not many boats I've ever seen with closed canopies are quiet, but maybe some are. So Less, what's the crime today? Was he Detached from the water? Do you think his Karma is not good enough for yours? Maybe we could have a law that measures the closeness a boat is to the water.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Maybe we could have a law that measures the closeness a boat is to the water.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[pm203]

[QUOTE=VtSteve;104858]. So Less, what's the crime today? QUOTE]

The crime today was that somebody( over the weekend) from Bear Island frauduently called in to the MP that a high performance boat was speeding through a no-wake zone when in fact it was not. Just how far will they go? And, why would they waste the MP's time and what's worse, put other people at risk, by consuming valuable MP time responding to a hoax? Details to follow............................................ .....