|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once again, not the whole story. The radar units, used in their intended environment are very accurate. Innaccuracies arise when used on boats. Incident angle issues, which cause the reading to be lower than the actual speed can be an issue. The MP stated they used only readings taken head on. They took this step because otherwise you and your side would be jumping all over the results for cosine error, can't do that now, so now you insinuate the opposite, that high speed results were omitted, give me break. If I take the results and shift them for a 30 degree cosine error, the number of boats over 45 mph go from less than 1 percent to less than 3 percent. Face it, there is no speed problem on the lake, the speed limit is a waste of time , money and resources. Quote:
Quote:
|
Pathetic
Seriously way too many individuals on this forum must be X-Files fans or major conspiracy theorists. Many of you have lost any and all credibility on this forum over the last 24 hours.
Tim Dunleavy does an EXCELLENT job DENYING allegations of fudging the data. Let's begin with the HEADLINE!!!!!!! Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted Here it is again: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted Let's try ...... BLUE: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted Ok not clear enough how about....... ORANGE oooooooooohhhhhh: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted oooohhhh prettyyyyyy. Now I am no Rocket Scientist but if the headline states, one more time: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted I can only deduce, scientifically mind you, that the "DATA" produced by "MARINE PARTROL" is "UNTAINTED." Wait I know, I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted Wow green is pretty too. |
Quote:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...yakVarneys.jpg Sometimes it isn't: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...t_05_094_2.jpg Politics 101: when you loosing based on logic, bring out the children. How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH? If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do not represent WinnFABS motives or actions, only my own. What I know about them is what I have read on their webpage or in articles. Hazelnut - The headline of a newspaper article is written by an editor, not the reporter. Quite often, as in this case, the headline does not accurately depict what is in the article. Lt. Dunleavy, in the article, never makes the claim that the data is untainted. You will please note that the headline contains no quotation marks. If the Lieutenant responds to my emails I will let you know. He can clear this up, your posting in various sizes and colors can not. |
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Bear Islander I addressed that..... Ha ha ha ha WOW!
"...I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW: Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted" WOW! This goes deeper than I thought.:laugh: |
Unbelievable.This is getting absurd.I think it's pretty clear which side makes sense and talks fact which throws mud at the wall and sees how much will stick.If you say it enough people start to believe it.That's what's happening with this bill.
|
Quote:
And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events. :look: |
Weak Reed
Bear Islander . . .
You are leaning against a weak reed |
RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain) :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Claimed ?
Quote:
|
Couldn't find that boat that did 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee. :confused:
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8707/ |
Supporters vs Opposers
Why do people who support the speed limits do nothing but blast the Opposers??? I see no actual evidence from the supporters to substantiate their claims. The opposers do a good job of backing their claims.
I can see where Gov Lynch is coming from. Can the supporters give someone concrete facts rather than a bunch of fallacies? |
Quote:
Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write. As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University. Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe. Especially for the limited number of times you have been on the lake. If they're true, you must be like the guy who keeps getting hit by lightning, maybe he should stay in during thunderstorms. Each "close encounter" would be a perfect storm of mistakes and bad luck, from being near a boat going above 45mph (highly unlikely based on the data) to the 150 ft distance violations (happens to me only 1 or 2 times per summer, and I am on the lake much more than you), it just doesn't make sense. I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed......... |
"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."
So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude. Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?:laugh: |
Quote:
Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory. |
This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=112221 |
Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded. This increases the validity of the study data in my eyes.
I do wish a breakdown were available as that would be informative. |
Quote:
"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..." If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you. It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker? :D |
Quote:
Are you talking about Sunset Lake in Alton? If you are I am not aware of any such ban. |
Quote:
My camp was in Greenfield, NH. |
Quote:
Sunset Lake (aka Gould Pond) - Greenfield SAF-C 402.78 - (a) No person shall operate a motorboat on Sunset Lake in Greenfield at a speed exceeding 10 MPH. However, this restriction shall not apply between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs first, on Monday through Saturday, both inclusive, and further provided during the restricted hours, motorboats shall not be operated at a speed exceeding 30 MPH. (b) All waterskiing on Sunset Lake shall be in a counter-clockwise direction during the unlimited hours. Sunset Lake - Hampstead RSA 270:74-a - Skicraft banned 12/31/89. SAF-C 402.79 All persons operating motorboats on that portion of Sunset Lake in the town of Hampstead, in excess of headway speed shall travel in a counterclockwise direction around Sunset Lake, while keeping a minimum distance of 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, rafts, docks and shore. This provision shall exclude powerboats being used for emergency situations where a direct line of travel is required and appropriate. |
Thanks codeman that is the one. It brings back memories. It was originally a ban on water skiing except during those hours. The Greenfield Town Beach had a big sign to that effect at the boat launch. It must have been changed to a 10 mph limit at a later time to make it more uniform with other rules. It amounts to the same thing, not easy to ski at 10 mph.
Water-skiing was allowed between 4:30 and 7:00 because our free swim ended at 4:30 and the children went to the playground. Supper was over around 6:30 or 6:45 so our evening waterfront activities started around 7:00PM. Sunday was rest day with no swimming classes for the speedboats to disturb. We still had free swim but to be fair there was one full day for the other lake residents to use their boats. Besides Camp Winimac, the evil rich kid camp, didn't water ski on Sundays. The counter-clockwise thing was to prevent a dropped ski from entering our swim area. Due to the shape of the lake, boats traveling in that direction would never be headed directly toward our waterfront. You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair. Quote:
Quote:
You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic. |
The State of New Hampshire owns the lake. And every one of our 300 to 400 underprivileged campers was a year-round resident of New Hampshire. The camp owned about 50% of the lakefront but only used a small portion.
There was a public hearing where all views were expressed and a compromise was reached by way of allowing people to water ski when our waterfront was not in use. The Commissioner of Safety presided over the hearing and made his decision. To bad both sides were not able to work out a similar compromise on Winni. |
Quote:
I wasn't sure if it was in NH or if there was a Sunset Lake in Mass you were talking about so I pulled it up. Thanks for the clarification. |
Quote:
|
I don't have an organization. Other than that I'm not sure what you are talking about. However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question.
|
?????
Quote:
|
Depends on how you read it.
Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument. Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post. The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does. Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane. |
Quote:
So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no. |
Quote:
|
Squeezing in—in defense...
Quote:
While the addition of radar locations is a good thing, it's also "Science Conducted-on-the-Fly". :( Quote:
With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey"). 1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge? 2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?) 3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were). 4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded). 5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!) 6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?) 7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood. I linked the Director's quotes (and another Supporter's exact quote). Now I'll quote one of your Fellow Opponents: Quote:
Concord Monitor links: http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/...akes-proposed/ http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/...not-enforcing/ Other link: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 |
Ok
Bear Islander,
You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion. Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed. Here is my statement: Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion. Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case. One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought. |
Here's an analogy to the safety problem created by high speed boating. Like when you are driv'n down route 93 at 65mph and a car passes you that's going 95mph. You don't see it coming up behind you, you don't know about it, it comes and goes so fast you just think to yourself "what a damned jerk that is, hope there's a trooper stake-out, up ahead to stop that nut."
Danger and fear is increased by a lot when you got much faster boats sharing the waters. I could be out there in my 14' aluminum , silver colored, fishing row-boat that basically blends into the water, and I'm thinking this could be a dangerous spot because I know the 8000lb-32'-1200hp 'Snake Dancer' could be right down on my little fishing spot going 75mph, any second, so no I better find a more protected fishing spot. At that speed, and with the sun, waves, and big long fiberglass hull, just how good can the 'Snake Dancer' look'n ahead, driver's lookout be?:) Winnipesaukee has all types of, motor-sail-paddle-row-swim all sharing the same water. High speed lowers the safety and increases the fear. Is fear a factor? It is to me. In the last ten years, there's lots more kayaks out on Winnipesaukee. Compared to a canoe, kayaks are designed low in the water for increased stability. Easy to paddle, cartop, transport, launch, fun to use, and relatively cheap, & evironmentally friendly, kayaks have lots of users and they is out there, all over the place, on Lake Winnipesaukee. Do you know what the "Snake Dancer' boats like to call kayaks....they call them .........Speed Bumps......! |
LOL FLL you make me chuckle!
1. Snake Dance hasn't been on this lake for years!
2. It was 42' not 32' 3. It had no where near that HP. 4. It was all show and no go as they say! So the only way you should have "feared" that boat was if you were afraid of loud colors and or Snakes! |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.