Actually how bout all them there vehicles driving on the ice? As of now any one of them could potentially travel at limitless speeds while driving on the ice. I aint never seen no speed limit sign stuck in the ice! :laugh:

Only one of the five passengers got killed in this high-speed crash...the other passengers were only injured. I bet it would have been a lot less tragic, or even avoided, had they been going 45;
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/200...t_crash_a.html

Good point Hnut. There should be a law...

NY incident.
 

I actually had that happen to me on the NY Turnpike back in 1979. I was driving a 440 6 Pack Challenger at 3 AM in the morning. It was 'wall to wall and treetop tall'. When I got off at the Lyons exit. The toll guy signal a trooper when he notice my times! :rolleye1:

That is what the ignore button is for... Sorry not the tolls.. you get in trouble for running those.. :D:laugh:

Discussion about tolls and snowmobiles should be taken to another thread. This thread in the Anti Speed Limit section is for speed limit talk only.
Let's talk about this accident that killed a 12 year old girl when the boat she was in was hit by another traveling at "a very fast rate of speed". Wonder if her chances for surviving would have more likely been increased or decreased if the boats were limited to 45?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2291795/posts

I wonder why the NH Legislature did not think about tolls on snowmobile trails.

give it time! LOL... they have to pass all these feel good speed limit laws first.. then we can move to banning sleds over a certain HP etc... Then the tolls will come.. God only knows what the boat and sled registration will be increased to by then.

Now we are getting back on topic.

Three killed in this one where "speed and proper lookout played crucial parts in the wreck". Wonder if the families of the dead would be amused by all this talk of tolls?; http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles...t-srowson.html

Give it time indeed.:rolleye1:

you know what was amazing with the EZ pass? When I towed to VA it picked up the trailer as well. I still could go through even with two extra axles. Any idea how it figures that out.

By the way the Tapanzee bridge WICKED expensive. I forgot the exact but it was like $5 a car / truck then $11.50 per axle! it was like $26 to go over it ONCE!

It's amazing that only one of the drivers was killed when these two boats collided at high speeds;
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/939482.txt

It's coming.... All it takes is one Representative who needs to get elected and loves to hear themselves talk. Then they champion a cause, such as the illustrious baseless SL law on Winni and whamo! Governing speed of snowmobiles is next I can feel it. Unfortunately they are sometimes noisy and they do go fast, and that scares people. :laugh:

Come on el...how can this have any relevance? It happened in another state for gosh sakes. Was alcohol involved? You're such a fear monger!

Fatal boat crash raises safety questions
 

It's a big problem down under too;
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...8/s2232602.htm
Can you imagine that over 22 people were killed in high-speed boating accidents right in Sydney's harbor in just seven years? Amazing.

TB,
You forgot to wink. Better hurry up and add it before they start quoting you and including you in their numbers.

I know he is being sarcastic but actually true. I haven't hit the button on TB yet.. Especially if he continues to have good posts like this.. Thanks:D

I agree Hnut, it is coming.

"it appears that the boat was traveling at a high rate of speed"
 

This guy killed his 25 yr old passenger by taking him for a boat ride that was a little too fast;
http://www.midwestboatparty.com/foru...ead.php?t=5594

Funny, the article gives no data on the actual speed they were traveling.

"High rate of speed" seems a little bit open to interpretation, especially when we have seen from some posts here that there are people who think 30MPH is a "high rate of speed".

It is also impossible to determine if the operator of the boat would have felt compelled to adhere to a speed limit law had one existed in the first place.

Further, this incident seems to be entirely limited to the people on-board the vessel involved. While I'll admit this is speculation on my part, there is a high probability that they were all riding under their own free will. I personally do not believe that we need any laws that only protect us from ourselves, and that such laws are rarely ever observed by the people they are geared towards.

About the only relation this story has to Winnipesaukee is that there is water involved.

I wonder how many people have been killed on their roadways in the same time period?

What are you getting at? Do you think that boating can be legislated down to a level where it is fully NERF'd?

This is a great point. But when we have a defined limit, there is no need for interpretation. And when a violator flaunts the law, he can be convicted.

There is still need for interpretation if someone did not witness the event and capture some sort of data to prove how fast the boat was going.

In some cases, where there is structural damage and other things to reconstruct the data from, you may stand some chance of getting a conviction based on a speed factor.

In the case of this accident, you would be very hard pressed to ever prove speed conclusively enough to get a conviction.

Its the scaring rush we are looking for! Just can tramatize the deer! :laugh:

Of course. But this is true for any crime. If you can't prove how fast a car was going, you can't convict the driver of speeding. If you can't prove a murderer murdered someone, you can't convict him of murder. But at least when you have the law and you can prove the offense, you can convict. One thing for sure; if you don't have the law you can't convict even when you can prove the offense.
Besides, most Americans are law abiding and will respect a law simply because it tells them what behavior society has deemed appropriate.

A 17 year old girl was killed in this high speed crash into a jetty; http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...rutiny/1042107

Yet in most of these cases, laws already exist for operation under influence of alcohol (most common contributing factor by far), negligent operation, homicide/manslaughter, etc. How many laws do you think are necessary and practical?

The link you reference above also points out alcohol as a contributing factor. That and the fact that the jetty itself has been the centerpoint of many night time accidents (likely due to the fact that it is unlit).

Saying that a speed limit here would have made any difference is a tough sell. You might as well draw the conclusion that boats cause accidents, and so therefore boats should be outlawed.

Perhaps we should require deer to have ezpass also!!! :D

And it points out that speed was also a contributing factor. Darkness, weather, and waves are often contributors too, but we can't control those. What we can try our best to control is the human factors; like speed and alcohol. By the logic you are apparently using, should we not have laws against DUI just because we still have a few who break them? If we did not have those laws, then those who are caught breaking them can't be convicted at all. If this guy was just below the limit, he might have walked. If he had fled the seen and waited two days until his blood cleared to turn himself in, he might have walked. A speed limit might not always prevent the accident or be enforceable in every case, but it is another deterrent and can often be another tool for the prosecutors.
If there were no offenders we would not need any laws at all...but unfortunately, and as this forum shows so often, there is always going to be a handful of scofflaws. We saw this summer and last on Winnipesaukee that when the MP is measuring speeds, almost all boaters keep their speeds reasonable...and that will always save lives.

el,

While I applaud your efforts to prove your point (borderline flooding aside)most of the articles do lack hard numbers. "High Rate of speed" "Too Fast" "High Speed" could mean 25, 45, 55, 105, who knows. Also, percentage wise this probably wouldn't even register on any scale. .00000004% or something in terms of an issue of safety. Also you are digging and I mean digging. Look at the dates on these articles. This data hardly supports a law. If you want I'll cull the data for you and make a graph but we're looking at tiny tiny numbers here. Never mind the fact that there is nothing even close to being local. So while you keep digging keep in mind that all you are doing is furthering the stereotypical SL supporters Modus operandi and that is fear mongering. All these flooded posts amount to is a smattering of events scattered throughout several years globally. I mean you're even citing Australia here. I understand what you are trying to prove here but it falls short of any "proof" that Lake Winnipesaukee itself needs a speed limit. Boating can be dangerous, period end of sentence. The only way to guarantee the prevention of death by water/boating is to stay on the shore. So please go ahead on your fear campaign while the rest of us actually figure out how to make our lake safer.

I'll say it again as I've said it a thousand times. I don't own a GFBL boat I have no intentions of EVER EVER EVER buying one. I swear to god. I just want legislation that works. Not a feel good useless law that occupies time and resources that target a percentage of boaters on the lake that I feel are safe drivers already. I wish you could actually believe and understand that I gain or lose nothing personally from this law. I continued to boat as I normally boated every year as I have for 25+ years on this lake. Only I saw NO DIFFERENCE this year and it pissed me off. I was continually aggravated by discourteous inexperienced boaters putting themselves and my family in danger. None of these people were breaking any Speed Limit.

I just feel that "your side" is setting safety on the lake back decades all under the guise of ridding the lake of what your group considers undesirables. It's a dangerous gamble to take. You pretend that the lake got safer and ignore the real fact that it hasn't. So while I am happy for you that YOU are happy with your new law, I think it is unfortunate that the real issues of safety on the lake will go on ignored while you celebrate. If you actually cared about safety on the lake you would want to address the actual problems on the lake.

Thanks
H

I don't know what he's been saying but if it's the same old rehtoric as usual, GREAT response Hazelnut.. See you next summer on the water!

Ditto.
 

Ever since I put el on the ignore list, I often wonder what he's been up to. ;)

Tell me about it.... it just shows you one bad apple can ruin the bunch.. There used to be some good productive conversations on both sides of the isle... Bear Islander was one of the leading contributers... But I haven't heard from them in so long. Even sunset had some good comments. While I may not have agreed with their views they did it in a very productive manner.. Hopefully over time they will come back.

Same here. At times I almost want to take him off my ignore list but I think it is better left this way.

It's too bad it doesn't eliminate all posts like the ones people quote.. but there haven't been too many of those either so no worries.

just a matter of time before a new name appears.. LMAO! :eek::laugh::D:eek::laugh::D

I'm sure you read everything regarding the accident, and the outcome of not only the accident, but what came of it.

First, the NJPBC and Dave P worked through the problem with authorities to help with safety. Most powerboaters supported extra enforcement, which was passed. Additional enforcement was needed, especially given that the accident occurred in a NWZ. Yes, a NWZ, not prominent in media reports, nor mentioned in speed limit supporter discussions on the accident.

You see El, there are some great people out there that support safe boating, and live safely. They have no preset agenda, only common sense. If Winni had a Dave P to help out there, no question the lake would be far better off than with all the Winfabs nonsense.

You post these old accidents, many of which have been researched to death by some of the very people you vilify. They offer solutions that can definitely help all boaters, you do not.

We hit 105 in my winter airboat on GPS between Diamond and Welch a few years back when I had it. The conditions were perfect, smooth, light snow cover and brisk. I probably could have gone faster.

I don't recall passing any speed limit signs... :D

Good point, and I've already noticed a thankyou for the post from an unlikely forum member, though it could be another case of TUI.

That was me... Hey when your right your right.. I always give thanks when thanks is due..

very impressive!..

careful you don't hit open water and skim.. then it would be an issue :D