[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Currently in Weirs there are approximately 1500 new housing units approved to be built...so even more people will be up here on busy summer weekends...The marinas accomodate the needs of this building boom by building more and more buildings to rack store boats. All of these boats and people create alot of congestion in certain more popular parts of the lake during the summer...There are alot of boats on the lake

This is exactly why we have to do something now. The changes you describe are causing the lake to become more and more crowded every year. Whereas a speed limit might not have been as big a need two or three years ago, it becomes more important with each passing year, as the number of "speedbumps" (a common nickname on OSO for us "blow boaters") increases.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The go fast boats are easily singled out because of thier exhaust noise and flashy graphics.

How are these boats being "singled out"? By who? The speed limits will apply equally to ALL boats. Stop trying to make this issue about the boats or the boaters. It is only about dangerously high speeds. If someone gets chopped in half by a boat going 90 mph, it will not matter about the flashy graphics. When a boat is coming straight at you at 90 mph, you tend to be worrying whether he sees you, not thinking about his graphics or what type of boat he is driving.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You could argue that if by going slower there is a better chance of seeing a small boat or kayak, however I don't agree.

Of course you don't...because you are not sincere. Anyone who would argue with this most basic point of logic is really not being reasonable.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Most of the go fast boaters I know are extremely safe, proactive drivers. There are a few bozos in every lot, but that isn't the norm.

"Most" is not good enough. All it will take is one "bozo" to kill me or my grandson.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There is no demonstrable need for a speed limit and its associated costs. There have been no accidents involving a go-fast where speed was the major factor.

Does this point need to be answered every day? How could there be any statistics when MP has not been keeping them? When accident causes so clearly being excessive speed have been categorized as other offenses?
And this threat about "associated costs" is just not going to carry. Lake George uses their access fees for many many other reasons, not to pay for speed enforcement. Fines alone have more than paid for their speed enforcement. Winnfabs has already agreed to privately raise whatever funds are needed to enforce the law. No NH citizen who does not want to contribute will ever have to pay a nickel. So let's please drop that scare tactic.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I do not wish to limit your enjoyment of the lake.

I believe you that such is not your wish, but how can it not be the result?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really would hope you don't feel the need to limit mine.

We do not wish to limit your enjoyment. That is not our secret goal. We just want you to enjoy yourself at an appropriate speed. That's all that this is about. Just as I don't want someone whose "enjoyment" includes firing guns to be doing so in my back yard. Not because I wish to limit his enjoyment, but because I do not want to be accidently shot.
Kayaking is a "passive" activity. Speeding is an "aggressive" one. Whenever passive and aggressive activities clash, limits must be placed on the aggressive. I can't smoke anywhere that I wish. I can't swear anywhere I wish. I can't play loud music anywhere I wish. I can't flatulate anywhere I wish. I enjoy these aggressive activities, but recognize and accept that there are appropriate and inappropriate places for them. I don't try to claim that the fellow who does not want to inhale my smoke or listen to my loud music is only trying to "limit my enjoyment".

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Here is an analogy for you: You have the right to ride your bicycle on the streets of Boston, but laws being what they are, you have to share the streets with lots of cars and trucks and motorcycles.

Here's a more appropriate analogy: You have a Toyota Camry and a wife and two young kids. You want to take your family to get an ice cream. But there are no speed limits on the roads and there are no traffic lights, no traffic signs, and no lane markings. And there are a "few bozos" (not my word) out there who have suped-up cars with no brakes and they are sometimes drag-racing in the streets of your neighborhood. Drag-racing is currently legal, so the police don't monitor their behavior. Hence, although there have been accidents over the years caused by these "bozos", the police cannot cite them for speeding and cannot blame the accidents on their obviously excessive speed (there is currently no such thing as "excessive speed"). So there are no statistics correlating speed and safety, except in other neighborhoods where such statistics are maintained. But they argue that those neighborhoods are different because the homes there are not privately owned as in your neighborhood. You know that it is dangerous out there, but the they keep arguing that this lack of statistics for your neighborhood proves their drag-racing is safe. So you can't take your kids to get that Ice cream.