From the Concord Monitor, 9/8/2009

[caloway]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Maybe they found it irritatingly loud. I really enjoy seeing well-made boats, and most fast boats are very nicely built, but I find loud exhaust irritating. Was it louder than underwater exhaust? If so, perhaps it was simply the noise that bothered them, not the brand or style.

A beautiful boat is one thing; a loud boat is something entirely different. They're offensive and irritating. I was having lunch outside in Wolfeboro last weekend and some bu**head in a Cigarette drown out conversation in the area for a good 5 minutes while idling away from shore. Seriously?!? ****

For those who didn't catch the sentence in the article, sounds like MP is tagging people close to shore. I suspect they don't really care what you do on the Broads.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by caloway

A beautiful boat is one thing; a loud boat is something entirely different. They're offensive and irritating. I was having lunch outside in Wolfeboro last weekend and some bu**head in a Cigarette drown out conversation in the area for a good 5 minutes while idling away from shore. Seriously?!? ****

For those who didn't catch the sentence in the article, sounds like MP is tagging people close to shore. I suspect they don't really care what you do on the Broads.

I equate Loud Boats with Loud Harleys. Same thing. It's all about... "LOOK AT ME". NB

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Will the real "Chase" standup please.

I have no relatives in Wolfeboro. Just a coincidence. My last name is pretty common in these parts. But he does write a nice letter, and I agree with him on almost every point. Thanks for the link. You make my job much easier.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Whomever it is, does not matter.

Agreed. Facts are facts, no matter who speaks them.

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The polls taken here would disagree with you.

Again, there have been no "polls" taken here. Just because you guys call something a "poll" and the website's software titles it a "poll" does not make it so. Who knows who was counted here and how many times? Who knows the width and depth of the audience it reached? There are rules for poll validity, and it is virtually impossible to strictly enforce those rules on a website where people choose to or are asked to participate. ARG is a legitimate polling agency that follows polling rules to the letter, and their results have a scientifically proven statistical accuracy. We know their results are correct within the tolerance they state. So their findings that 83% of Granite Staters want the 45/25 Speed Limit might be off by 3% either way...it might only be 80% or it might by 86%, but we know that the vast vast vast majority is in favor. As to the "7", there are really only about 7 of you making all the noise on these threads (which should more accurately be called the "Anti Speed Limit" threads). Several of you hang online all day every day and post every five minutes, so it seems there are many more, but the reality is that all the recruiting you do has only brought your numbers up to 7 or so. There are far fewer supporters weighing in here...you made sure of that by harassing and bullying. But we know there are far more of us than you in the "silent majority". ARG proved that.

Originally Posted by chmeeee

What does this have to do with our speed limit?

Exactly...I'm chastised every time I get off topic...please respect the forum rules if you are going to enforce them on me.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

El has written a splendid post recently.

Thanks

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Honestly this is as well stated as you have ever made your point here on this forum...I think the post is great ...

Thanks

Originally Posted by VtSteve

El called SL opponents Felons for God's sake.

I called them "scofflaws" and asked how many were felons. I know at least one is a felon because he pm'd to tell me so. And he did that before I asked about the rest, leading to my question, not responding to it. Surprised he didn't tell me how many guns he owns. We all know several of you are scofflaws because they brag about violating our laws. There is no sin in calling a spade a spade.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Funny ...Just can't recall someone with the last name of Chase.

And I don't remember anyone named Broadhopper, but I wouldn't term that "funny". What's your point?

Originally Posted by codeman671

Most of the accidents that have occured were not even high speed related, and most were alcohol related.

Why do you all seem to need to make these two things mutually exclusive. The boats were obviously going too fast. Just because a driver of a boat that is going too fast happens to be drunk does not make his speed suddenly appropriate. Littlefield said he was going to 28MPH. That is how that "minimum" number was established. But that does not mean he was really only going 28MPH. How many times has a cop asked you if you knew how fast you were going and you said 50 when you were really going 70? Does that make it so that your speed was really only 50 because you said so? Was Littlefield going to admit if he was going 50? And if he was really that drunk (which a jury did not find) that he was not aware of a 21-ft boat in his path, do you really think he was aware of his exact speed? Come on. His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.

Originally Posted by Ryan

If speed were an issue that warranted a new law

We're not talking about a "new" law anymore. We are talking about the status quo. The SL is the law and the question now is "Why let a law that is working so well sunset?". That is a huge difference over challenging the enactment of a new law.

Originally Posted by Ryan

This just needs to sunset, with no relevant data to support a continuation

You have it backwards. Where is the relevant data that justifies sunseting a law? The people who fought for the law are loving it.. why would the legislature let a working law sunset in an election year? Why would they abandon their constituents...who vote... and side with a small fraction ...who don't vote? Imagine someone is killed the summer after they sunset this law after two years of incident-free boating...imagine the outrage. What legislator is going to take that chance?

Originally Posted by Ryan

just a waste of taxpayer $$.

But you guys say that the MP is not bothering with it. Where is the money being wasted? Make up your minds.

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

My wife and I have worked hard for what we have!! Get down off your high horse!

If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you putting it on?

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

your lies

Who's on the high horse? I'm a devout Catholic and cannot recall the last time I lied. I just apparently see things differently than you. But I don't call you a liar. You should be more careful with your name calling.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Of the SL been wine and dining the legislature in his fancy resort. He even took them all out on a boat ride when there were two poker runs taking place. So who are the 'fat cats' now?

What the #$%*& is this supposed to mean? Is it even English? Who are you talking about? I'd say maybe you were typing too fast, but there might have been alcohol involved, and we know one can't type too fast when drinking, under the rules of mutual exclusivity explained above.

Originally Posted by tis

the Littlefield one and the one on Parker Island were alcohol related...So neither of these accidents can be blamed on speed.

Come again? If rob a store when I'm drunk they can't charge me with robbery? Where did you go to law school? The only reason that excessive speed was not cited as a cause is because up until this year there was no defined excessive speed in the laws (and/or their speed was not proven). These were nighttime accidents. Littlefield "admitted to" 28. That would be speeding today, and his violation of the nighttime speed limit preceding this accident would surely have been another charge. To say that the others were not going over 25 is silly. We just can't prove they were going over 25. We also couldn't prove Littlefield was drunk. Does that mean he wasn't?

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

just because we slowed down

Exactly...finally, an admission that the law was effective from one of you. Thankyou for the honesty.

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

People need to use common sense. Unfortunately, a lot of them don't.

Exactly, so we unfortunately sometimes need laws to coral those without common sense. Laws that the behavior of the rest of us did not necessitate, but that we still need to obey too. I never drove drunk. I use common sense. But does that mean that we don't need DUI laws? Should we blame society for making laws that target those without common sense? No. Happens all the time. We should blame those idiots that didn't use common sense for inflicting limits on the rest of us. I've been telling you guys all along that you are shooting in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by caloway

****

Can I use that word in some of my posts too? It would really help sometimes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by elchase

Why do you all seem to need to make these two things mutually exclusive. The boats were obviously going too fast. Just because a driver of a boat that is going too fast happens to be drunk does not make his speed suddenly appropriate. Littlefield said he was going to 28MPH. That is how that "minimum" number was established. But that does not mean he was really only going 28MPH. How many times has a cop asked you if you knew how fast you were going and you said 50 when you were really going 70? Does that make it so that your speed was really only 50 because you said so? Was Littlefield going to admit if he was going 50? And if he was really that drunk (which a jury did not find) that he was not aware of a 21-ft boat in his path, do you really think he was aware of his exact speed? Come on. His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.

I'd love to see your source for that load of BS. Where did you find that his boat flew 7 feet in the air for almost fifty feet??? It was MP that estimated 28mph based on countless hours of investigation. Post your source and it better be able to be verified, otherwise you need to crawl back in your troll hole. Its the posting of lies like this that strikes fear into and influences the public for no reason because it is just that, lies.

You are 5000lbs over on the weight of the boat and it just gets worse from there. Your post is a continuous load of crap that you made up. Period. It has been argued time and time again that if he was doing the suggested 25mph the results would have been the same. Had he flown his boat 50 feet through the air and landed on that boat he would have flattened it and kept on going and everyone on the 21' boat would be dead.

The jury could not prove him to be drunk because he left the scene and surfaced a day or two later. Receipts and witnesses indicated what he consumed, but without actual BAC he could not be held to it.

I have kept rather quiet through this years debates but this post pissed me off. I have no problem with 25mph at night and have stated that numerous times. The speed limit would not have prevented this accident, nor the Diamond Island incident. Putting police patrols on the public docks on weekends looking for intoxicated boaters leaving restaurants would have saved at least one life out of these two that have passed.

In case you'd like to get your facts straight, here is the link to the Supreme Court ruling on the case.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...5/littl071.htm

Originally Posted by elchase

I'm a devout Catholic and cannot recall the last time I lied. I just apparently see things differently than you. But I don't call you a liar. You should be more careful with your name calling.

Still chuckling over that one!

[VtSteve]

[QUOTE=elchase;108500]
Agreed. Facts are facts, no matter who speaks them.

Littlefield said he was going to 28MPH. That is how that "minimum" number was established. But that does not mean he was really only going 28MPH. And if he was really that drunk (which a jury did not find) that he was not aware of a 21-ft boat in his path, do you really think he was aware of his exact speed? Come on. His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.

You have it backwards. Where is the relevant data that justifies sunseting a law?

Actually, the Sunset provision is in the law.

Should we blame society for making laws that target those without common sense? No. Happens all the time. We should blame those idiots that didn't use common sense for inflicting limits on the rest of us. I've been telling you guys all along that you are shooting in the wrong direction.

I agree, sometimes idiots necessitate a law or some form of enforcement that otherwise would not be necessary. I don't think the lake is at that point. The enforcement never really was started, and many felt it wasn't a problem anyway.


You make some good points. But your post contains materially misleading information, which is not only a trend with you, it has become fact. If you'd like to pull out the misleading statements, and outright lies, yes, lies, discussion could possibly continue. By all accounts, from virtually everyone at the scene, in the courts, witnesses, this was NOT a high speed crash. I understand how you like to use search arrays to see if your materially misleading information can spread. Unfortunately, you've become more like a virus, and facts are usually the cure.

It's only because I think Littlefield's probably a jerk that I don't get into other details of that night. But you sound more than silly El, and I doubt very much if you've gained any degree of respect. If you have, it's almost certainly from the wrong type of people. I'd also appreciate it if you didn'y invoke religion while lying, it's quite offensive.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by elchase

Who's on the high horse? I'm a devout Catholic and cannot recall the last time I lied. I just apparently see things differently than you. But I don't call you a liar. You should be more careful with your name calling.

But you use the language below, what would the Diocese think?

Originally Posted by elchase

What the #$%*& is this supposed to mean? Is it even English? Who are you talking about? I'd say maybe you were typing too fast, but there might have been alcohol involved, and we know one can't type too fast when drinking, under the rules of mutual exclusivity explained above.

Originally Posted by codeman671

load of BS...crawl back in your troll hole ...lies...posting of lies...it is just that, lies...pissed me off...a continuous load of crap that you made up

This type of bullying rant might frighten the little mrs, but it really has no value here. You guys seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, and that if you yell loud enough, call them names, and use aggressive language and curse they will submit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Where did you find that his boat flew 7 feet in the air

Do your own homework like I did. Read the reports like I did. Look at the photo of the re-enactment and put a scale on it. Littlefield's water line is at least 7 feet above Hartman's waterline in that snapshot, and might have been higher when his flight peaked. Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

It was MP that estimated 28mph based on countless hours of investigation.

Wrong. The MP had no skidmarks or witness testimony of his speed preceding the collision. Regardless of their "countless hours of investigation", they had no scientific bases for establishing his speed. Hence their reliance on his testimony that he was "only" going 28 MPH. Or was it just a remarkable coincidence that they determined his speed to be exactly the same speed he said he was going? Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

You are 5000lbs over on the weight of the boat

Wrong. His boat was a 36 foot Baja Outlaw with twin 454's and twin outdrives, was fuel heavy, had a full passenger compartment, and was going at least 28MPH. The four props alone weighed over 200 pounds. Do your homework before you call someone else a liar. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

It has been argued time and time again that if he was doing the suggested 25mph the results would have been the same.

It has been argued?!? It has been argued?!? And that makes it a fact? And I'm the liar? You're trying to say that if he had been going only 25MPH Mr. Hartman would still be alive, and I'm the one spewing BS? What are your sources for this "fact"? How was this conclusion derived? Now are you the liar? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Had he flown his boat 50 feet through the air and landed on that boat he would have flattened it and kept on going and everyone on the 21' boat would be dead.

Stop twisting Mr Honesty. When did I say he was going through the air before the collision? His flight began at impact, as I said. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

The jury could not prove him to be drunk

Correct. He was acquitted as I said. He was found "not guilty". In America that means he was innocent (innocent until proven guilty). There was also insufficient evidence to prove his speed was excessive, so in that case, you take the position that his speed was not excessive. Why the double standard? We all know he was drunk and he was driving way too fast. Had he obeyed our DUI laws this accident might not have happened. Had he been traveling at a safer speed this accident might not have happened. Had he aided the Hartmans instead of fleeing Mr Hartman might have survived. Be honest enough to admit all the facts before you start calling others liars, you glass-house hypocrite. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

The speed limit would not have prevented this accident, nor the Diamond Island incident.

This is just "a load of BS...lies...posting of lies...it is just that, lies...a continuous load of crap that you made up". Unless you "post your source and it better be able to be verified, otherwise you need to crawl back in your troll hole".

Originally Posted by codeman671

Putting police patrols on the public docks on weekends looking for intoxicated boaters leaving restaurants would have saved at least one life out of these two that have passed.

Agreed. But two rights don't make a wrong.

Originally Posted by codeman671

In case you'd like to get your facts straight, here is the link to the Supreme Court ruling on the case.

I've listened to the hearing several times. I see no place where anything I have said is contradicted. Did you listen to it? If you can find anything in it that proves me a liar, please post it. Otherwise, shut up.
Did you hear the part where the justices talk about the speed limit? "Seems pretty fast at night, no?...You mean they don't have a speed limit on the lake?"

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by elchase

Do your own homework like I did. Read the reports like I did. Look at the photo of the re-enactment and put a scale on it. Littlefield's water line is at least 7 feet above Hartman's waterline in that snapshot, and might have been higher when his flight peaked. Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Please point us to the data to support this. I can tell you that my 32 foot Monterey at 8500lbs dry with twin engines and 600hp at 50mph hitting a large wave would not put it anywhere near 7 feet in the air nor would it fly anywhere near 50 feet. This kind of data clearly would have come up in investigation and would have been presented at trial. The findings do not indicate that he was driving the boat in a reckless manner other than failing to maintain a proper lookout thus causing the accident.

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

Originally Posted by elchase

Wrong. The MP had no skidmarks or witness testimony of his speed preceding the collision. Regardless of their "countless hours of investigation", they had no scientific bases for establishing his speed. Hence their reliance on his testimony that he was "only" going 28 MPH. Or was it just a remarkable coincidence that they determined his speed to be exactly the same speed he said he was going? Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Wrong. MP did reconstruct the accident and were able to determine an estimated speed based in the damage done to both boats to be approximately that. Again at 50mph hitting a boat that was either stopped or maintaining slow forward momentum the Baja would have crushed the entire boat and would have killed EVERYONE in it!

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

Originally Posted by elchase

Wrong. His boat was a 36 foot Baja Outlaw with twin 454's and twin outdrives, was fuel heavy, had a full passenger compartment, and was going at least 28MPH. The four props alone weighed over 200 pounds. Do your homework before you call someone else a liar. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Wrong. Other posters have already provided solid proof that the loaded boat weighed nowhere near 15k lbs. The 4 props weighed 200lbs???? This boat would be equipped with Bravo drives with single props for a total of 2, not 4. Baja did not use dual prop setups in that boat, and even if they were dual props each side would not have weighed 100lbs. Unless you have a picture of that exact boat showing something very much out of the norm I have to call BS or lack of research on your side.

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

Originally Posted by elchase

It has been argued?!? It has been argued?!? And that makes it a fact? And I'm the liar? You're trying to say that if he had been going only 25MPH Mr. Hartman would still be alive, and I'm the one spewing BS? What are your sources for this "fact"? How was this conclusion derived? Now are you the liar? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

You misinterpreted my statement. I stated that even at 25mph instead of the alleged 28mph the outcome would have been the same. The past argument was whether or not the speed limit would have saved Mr. Hartman. If the speed limit was in place and the boat was going 25mph the outcome still would have been the same. No BS or lies spewed.

Originally Posted by elchase

Stop twisting Mr Honesty. When did I say he was going through the air before the collision? His flight began at impact, as I said. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

I will admit that my initial read on your post made me think you were stating that the boat was in air prior to hitting the Wellcraft. I apologize for that, it was not an intentional twist. That is what an adult does, they apologize when they are wrong. Try it sometime.

However...I have seen no data to show that the Baja hit the Wellcraft, basically jumped it and flew 50 feet. As previously asked, please post a link to your source.

Originally Posted by elchase

Correct. He was acquitted as I said. He was found "not guilty". In America that means he was innocent (innocent until proven guilty). There was also insufficient evidence to prove his speed was excessive, so in that case, you take the position that his speed was not excessive. Why the double standard? We all know he was drunk and he was driving way too fast. Had he obeyed our DUI laws this accident might not have happened. Had he been traveling at a safer speed this accident might not have happened. Had he aided the Hartmans instead of fleeing Mr Hartman might have survived. Be honest enough to admit all the facts before you start calling others liars, you glass-house hypocrite. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

Somewhat agreed. We all know he was drunk, he had been drinking at the restaurant and drinking all day on the boat. You want a double standard? Why did nobody ever go after the restaurant for serving someone who was most likely already intoxicated or served them to the point of intoxication, thus being a direct influence on the outcome that night. They either aided in or caused the death of Mr. Hartman. Funny how Rusty jumped on speed limit supporting bandwagon, he was probably crapping his pants the whole time.
Littlefield clearly was at fault for not stopping, fleeing the scene of of the accident, the whole damn thing was his ultimate fault and my post did nothing to take away from that. I have never defended him in ANY of my posts. I was honest and admitted only facts, yet I am a glass-house hypocrite? Get a life.

Originally Posted by elchase

I'm a devout Catholic

Too funny. So aren't the priests that molest small children.

Originally Posted by elchase

I've listened to the hearing several times. I see no place where anything I have said is contradicted. Did you listen to it? If you can find anything in it that proves me a liar, please post it. Otherwise, shut up.
Did you hear the part where the justices talk about the speed limit? "Seems pretty fast at night, no?...You mean they don't have a speed limit on the lake?"

Already done, now take your own advice.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

This type of bullying rant might frighten the little mrs, but it really has no value here.... Otherwise, shut up.

Stop the tough talk, it does not become you.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

And I don't remember anyone named Broadhopper, but I wouldn't term that "funny". What's your point?

Folks remember me as the 'Basty Nastard' back then. What's your point?

As far as wining and dining the state reps, that is common knowledge among the hospitality folks. It is nonethical. When will the frigging Democrats pass the Ethics bill? Oh I forgot, an election is coming up!

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by elchase

His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.

Yes, that statement is INCREDIBLY funny!! How do you make this stuff up?? Here's a link to the spec sheet for a 2002 Baja 36 Outlaw; please note the dry weight listed is 8,300 lbs. Add 1,451 lbs for 235 gals of fuel plus a little more for misc. gear and 3 occupants and the weight is still well under 11,000 lbs. I'd post links for other model years but 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2003 all list the same dry weight and fuel capacity, so there's really no point. In case you want to argue about the 1999 model, the link was broken so I couldn't get the numbers.

Originally Posted by elchase

The people who fought for the law are loving it..

That would be the "others like you" that lied and distorted facts to get their way. I refer you to your fantasy boat story above.

Originally Posted by elchase

If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you putting it on?

I'M trying to shake it off, YOU'RE the one stuffing me in it!!

Originally Posted by elchase

I'm a devout Catholic

That explains a LOT!!

Originally Posted by elchase

cannot recall the last time I lied.

Once again, I refer you to your fantasy boat story above and the quote below.

Originally Posted by elchase

Wrong. His boat was a 36 foot Baja Outlaw with twin 454's and twin outdrives, was fuel heavy, had a full passenger compartment, and was going at least 28MPH. The four props alone weighed over 200 pounds. Do your homework before you call someone else a liar.

NO, you're STILL wrong!! See the spec sheet link above for the 36 Outlaw! The dry weight listed INCLUDES ENGINES AND DRIVES! 8,300 lbs for the boat WITH ENGINES AND DRIVES plus 235 gals fuel capacity. Unleaded fuel weighs 6.175 lbs/gal SO, add 1,451 lbs for the fuel, plus a bit more for gear and 3-4 people! That DOES NOT add up to 15,000 lbs!! LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SPEC SHEET! Baja used Bravo I drives, NOT Bravo III's so ONLY 2 PROPS, NOT 4!!! Stop lying, it does not become you! Perhaps you should take your OWN ADVICE and DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you call someone a liar!

[Kracken]

If my six year old son were driving the boat, he could have avoided a collision at 2 times that speed. The fact is the operator of the Baja did not avoid the collision. The fact is it was never proven that his high rate of speed made it impossible to avoid the collision. So it was not speed that caused the accident.

Most reasonable people understand that is was the consumption of alcohol that caused this accident. The proof is there (bar bills, eyewitness at the dock) however it is circumstantial evidence and a BWI conviction is almost impossible under these circumstances. To use this case as a centerpiece for a speed limit law seems to be a little disingenuous.

In this country you are not innocent to proven guilty. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, the verdict “not guilty “ does not equal innocent. (See OJ Simpson).

Mr. Chase, you get called out here all the time because it is you make derogatory comments towards anybody that disagrees with your view. If you represented your views with “I believe” or “in my opinion” you might get a different response.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

We're not talking about a "new" law anymore. We are talking about the status quo. The SL is the law and the question now is "Why let a law that is working so well sunset?". That is a huge difference over challenging the enactment of a new law.


You have it backwards. Where is the relevant data that justifies sunseting a law? The people who fought for the law are loving it.. why would the legislature let a working law sunset in an election year? Why would they abandon their constituents...who vote... and side with a small fraction ...who don't vote? Imagine someone is killed the summer after they sunset this law after two years of incident-free boating...imagine the outrage. What legislator is going to take that chance?

I'm not talking about a new law, I'm referring to an existing law. As written, the law will sunset after the 2010 season unless there is DATA that justifies extending the law. Data does not include perceptions of safety or warm fuzzy feelings.

What would happen if there was an accident on the lake next year? They say that implementing speed limits on other lakes have been successful. Try a quick search for Candlewood lake in CT, a lake with a SL that had a fatal accident last July. There's some relevant DATA.

Originally Posted by elchase

But you guys say that the MP is not bothering with it. Where is the money being wasted? Make up your minds.

Money is wasted when state representatives propose unnecessary amendments to a bill, when that money and time would be better spent dealing with the economy, unemployment, and budget shortfalls; not some feel good legislation.

[upthesaukee]

This thread has gotten way off topic and has become a thread of name-calling.

Please put the private animosities aside. It will make for a much more enjoyable and informational thread.

And I fear our webmaster will be forced to close yet another thread.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

This thread has gotten way off topic and has become a thread of name-calling.

Please put the private animosities aside. It will make for a much more enjoyable and informational thread.

And I fear our webmaster will be forced to close yet another thread.

Beat me to the punch. I believe that's El's joy here.

I'm willing to revisit anything that provides proof of something we don't already know, or if some of us have misinterpreted anything. Flamboyant posts and bad behavior do nothing. Perhaps we should just stick to issues involving safety and being helpful, he never goes there

I've read a fair amount of that particular accident. I know how high the bow is on the Littlefield boat, and that said bow ran up onto the stern of the smaller boat. I've read most of the testimony available, as well as the MP reports, Court reports and whatever. I've never seen anything that would substantiate the statements El made. If that was the case, the MP and prosecution would have looked like fools in trial. It would seem like a glaring omission if true.

[NoBozo]

I forgot. What was the original Topic..?? NB

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

This thread has gotten way off topic and has become a thread of name-calling.

Please put the private animosities aside. It will make for a much more enjoyable and informational thread.

And I fear our webmaster will be forced to close yet another thread.

Wow, I get busy at work and jump off the site for one day and look what happens.

First in reading EL's response to me I was actually impressed. A very nice post indeed explaining "his" thoughts on the limit and why it is needed. However there were many questions left unanswered.

I asked what caused YOU to "feel" that this is needed and why YOU had such anomisity toward the GFB crowd. I didn't know if perhaps you had close encounter or was it something else? After reading the following posts I have to ask: Were you a personal acquaintence of a party involved in the Littlefield accident? I only ask because it appears you feel very strongly on this one particular issue and you also apparently know a lot about it?

Also, as much as I see you point, you continue to use the words "safe" and point towards the law making the lake "better". However, there is again no data yet to show that. Don't you want to see the data from the MP over the course of the 2 year test period that the Winnfabs requested?

As far as all the liar acqusations and name calling.... Again Please lets keep it civil... Don't make it personal. EL you have every right to post your opinions but you do have a tendancy to stir or flame the threads. This makes you a center of attention. I don't know if this your intention or not but I for one would like to ask you nicely to please stop stirring the pot. Don't stop posting (which twice you have said you would do) for you keep these very interesting but lets please keep it civil.

I also will make the same request to those responding to EL.

This obviously can get heated but no need to go down the path some of these posts have begun to lead us to..

Just my 2 cents.

Carry on.

[DEJ]

A little off topic but what the heck, this thread has gone into the toilet anyway.

At the trial, it was presented by the defense that either the day of this accident or something close to it Mr. Hartman was looking for a stern light that would not be as bright as the one he had in his boat as he liked to star gaze at night and the stern light he had was to bright for him to do so.

It was discussed that possibly he/they had turned their lights off that night as it was a clear night so they could star gaze making their boat difficult if impossible to see. This was ultimately dismissed through testimony of so called experts but this always stuck in my mind. I will always wonder.....

[VtSteve]

I'll have to dig that out. I do remember a marina worker testified that Hartman had been in their marina store looking to replace a broken stern light, which I think was from the previous summer. I don't remember anything about too bright a light. But then again, I've forgotten what this thread was about.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by DEJ

A little off topic but what the heck, this thread has gone into the toilet anyway.

At the trial, it was presented by the defense that either the day of this accident or something close to it Mr. Hartman was looking for a stern light that would not be as bright as the one he had in his boat as he liked to star gaze at night and the stern light he had was to bright for him to do so.

It was discussed that possibly he/they had turned their lights off that night as it was a clear night so they could star gaze making their boat difficult if impossible to see. This was ultimately dismissed through testimony of so called experts but this always stuck in my mind. I will always wonder.....

I had heard the same thing. I had also heard (again "heard" not fact) that an expert had been brought in to testify that he had found the stern light had in fact been burned out prior to the collision but it was not admissable.

Now regardless of this, it was an absolute tragedy.

However what I think is worse is that people try to use this accident as their motivation and use it to point towards the reason for or against the speed limit.

Speed had nothing to do with it. 25, 28, 15, 30 whatever..... It was a tragic accident where the captain failed to keep proper watch. There was most likely booze involved but it wasn't proven and certainly will not be proven here on a forum. Only the man upstairs knows the truth and can judge.

So lets stop using the littlefield accident as the reason to trumpet for speed limits. Many laws were broken that fateful night and the speed limit would not have kept it from happening, it would have been just another broken law to add to the pile.

(only question, was he cited for breaking the 150 ft law?) I would be surprised if not.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Folks remember me as the 'Basty Nastard' back then. What's your point?

Just asking. What's your point?

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

As far as wining and dining the state reps...It is nonethical.

I agree, so let's just both promise not to do it and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

"others like you" that lied"

And many would say that you are the liar...let's just agree that we both believe the other is a liar , drop the name-calling and insulting, and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Kracken

If my six year old son were driving the boat, he could have avoided a collision at 2 times that speed.

And you people wonder why we need laws? Please don't put your 6-year old son behind the helm of a speeding 36-foot performance boat while I am on the lake. You might have a lot of faith in him, but that just shows a lack of that "common sense" we were talking about.

Originally Posted by Kracken

The fact is the operator of the Baja did not avoid the collision. The fact is it was never proven that his high rate of speed made it impossible to avoid the collision. So it was not speed that caused the accident.

You really need to take a Logics course. This argument is simply not valid. But I will not call it a lie because I expect that you really believe that your first two statements prove your last (they don't).

Originally Posted by Kracken

Most reasonable people understand that is was the consumption of alcohol that caused this accident. The proof is there

Same thing. Take a logic course. First off, "most reasonable people" do not likely have that understanding. Most would probably feel that alcohol consumption was a contributor to the accident. Any rational person would also admit (at least to himself) that speed also had to be a contributor. Had he been going 5MPH, would Hartman have died? Probably not. Now at what speed did Hartman's death become probable? Was it 20MPH, 25? 28? 35? We just do not an cannot know for sure. Anyone who says they know is not being honest (either with himself or those he is talking to. I won't say he is a liar. And anyone who says he would not have died at twice the impact speed is not being honest. To say that speed is not part of the equation is simply nonsense, and it is impossible to argue against nonsense.

Originally Posted by Kracken

To use this case as a centerpiece for a speed limit law seems to be a little disingenuous.

A boat going admittedly over the SL limit hit and killed someone, and it is disingenuous to cite it in a SL discussion? Or are you saying, "Please don't use it because it is so damaging to our argument"? Of course this accident will always be brought up. and of course Blizzard's will be brought up. And of course the Eagle Island collisions will be brought up. And of course all the roll-overs will be brought up. Those are the events that cumulatively brought all this to a head. You can't just dismiss them because the exact speed in each case was not measured. There is no forensic means to ever establish a boat's speed after the fact (except if it had a recording GPS), so if the bar is set that high that we need to prove the speed a boat was going, of course there will never have been a high speed caused accident, according to you. But when we keep having boat after boat going too fast and imperiling life and property around the lake, it is time to make a change. And we made a change. And it is working great....not a single accident this summer where the cause even could have been related to excessive speed.

Originally Posted by Kracken

In this country you are not innocent to proven guilty. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, the verdict “not guilty “ does not equal innocent.

Semantics. Did you really not understand my point?

Originally Posted by Kracken

you get called out here all the time because it is you make derogatory comments towards anybody that disagrees with your view. If you represented your views with “I believe” or “in my opinion” you might get a different response.

Funny, but I was going to write the exact same line to all 7 of you guys yesterday, but I figured it was not my place to lecture and you would not want to hear it anyway (like me). The derogatory level of my comments does not even start to approach the level of some of the comments you guys throw at me (see Codman's comment discussed below). When I give back, often just re-quoting what was thrown at me, you guys all seem to have the same reaction..."don't get personal"..."no name-calling"..."keep it civil". I'm all for keeping it civil, but it has to go both ways. My opinions are not lies just because they do not agree with yours or help your position. Those on my side (which has been scientifically shown to represent the vast majority of us) do not insult those on your side for your side's opinions (even though they sound fanciful, redundant yet contradictory, and oftentimes comical to us). If you want civility, you need to start being civil yourselves.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Please point us to the data to support this.

It's not my job to do your research for you. Do your own. Take a physics course. Go on line and do some research, You'll see.

Originally Posted by codeman671

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar... I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar...I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar...I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar.I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar...I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar.

So let's just agree that the dislike and distrust is mutual and move on.

Originally Posted by codeman671

at 50mph hitting a boat that was either stopped or maintaining slow forward momentum the Baja would have crushed the entire boat and would have killed EVERYONE in it!

While I'd rather have heard this from an opposer who has some scientific credibility, it is nice to finally hear one of you admit that high speed kills, and that 50MPH is too dangerous. Thank you.

Originally Posted by codeman671

If the speed limit was in place and the boat was going 25mph the outcome still would have been the same.

You know this? How? Or are you just speculating (I won't say "lying")? And might your speculation not be tainted by your agenda? At what exact speed would Hartman have survived? At what exact speed would Mrs Hartman have died too? Since you apparently have access to information unavailable to the rest of mankind, please enlighten us.

Originally Posted by codeman671

That is what an adult does, they apologize when they are wrong.

Then there are some very young members on this forum. I'm still waiting for Hazelnut's apology. Please pass this statement to her.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Why did nobody ever go after the restaurant for serving someone who was most likely already intoxicated or served them to the point of intoxication, thus being a direct influence on the outcome that night.

I can't answer these questions, but in general, this is a philosophy that I simply don't believe in...blame someone else. Maybe I'm just more conservative than you, but I feel we need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop trying to put responsibility for the mistakes we make onto others. Nobody put a gun to Littlefield's head that night and made him drink. Nobody pushed his throttle down. Nobody made him flee. If we keep blaming others like the 22 yr old bartender who did not know that Littlefield had already been drinking at his table, or the people at the docks who did not stop Littlefield from leaving, or the guy at the marina who did not sell Hartman a higher wattage bulb, then we are just telling Littlefield that he was not responsible for Hartman's death. There was only one criminal that night...everyone else was a victim.

Originally Posted by codeman671

I was honest and admitted only facts, yet I am a glass-house hypocrite? Get a life.

I think if you are truly honest you will look back over what you wrote and see how many of your "facts" are not in-fact facts, they are just your opinions or wants tailored into factual-looking statements. There are just too many unknowns to draw many of the conclusions you do, and all of your conclusions swing one way. You don't have to write back and apologize...just be honest with yourself and I'm sure that, for example, you'll have to admit (to yourself) that Littlefield's speed contributed to Hartman's death. I'm the first to admit that alcohol also contributed. But alcohol did not kill Hartman, and neither did that bartender.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Too funny. So aren't the priests that molest small children.

See, this is what I was talking about above. This is a really rude and slanderous implication. If I made this statement, you guys would be jumping all over it and it would be the subject of twenty follow-ups. Yet it is so common in the opposers posts that when one of you make, it just slips though unnoticed. Are you saying that I am a child molster? Are you saying I am on par with child molesters? You guys really stoop too low sometimes.

Originally Posted by Ryan

the law will sunset after the 2010 season unless there is DATA that justifies extending the law. Data does not include perceptions of safety or warm fuzzy feelings.

As I've been taught (and this might be wrong...so don't call me a liar if it is), Laws with sunset provisions are meant to be extended unless the laws are shown to be non-functional or detrimental. Legislators do not make habit of passing ad hoc laws except for addressing ad hoc problems. If the problem was a construction project, for example, they might have a temporary construction curfew law that sunsets after the project's completion. They intend for the law to sunset because the problem is over. When there is a permanent problem, the burden falls on showing that the law did not fix the problem. We obviously had a problem. Thousands of citizens weighed in, attended hearings, and wrote their legislators (from both sides), all saying that boating on the lake was mayhem. Opposers blamed that on one thing or another (everything except high speeds), supporters blamed it at least partly on high speeds. But nobody (to my memory - except the MP director) said it was a boating paradise out there and nothing needed to be done. Now this summer, we saw no accidents that could possibly be blamed on excessive speed, and many people are saying it was a boating paradise out there. So why would the legislature sunset this bill and have us return to the mayhem? Just because 7 guys on this forum who say they don't obey the law anyway and say the MP is not even trying to enforce it want it to sunset? Maybe it's me, Maybe my view is tainted by my love of the civility that I witnessed out there first-hand this summer, but I just can't see it.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Candlewood lake in CT, a lake with a SL that had a fatal accident last July. There's some relevant DATA.

A speeding boat went aground in NY just the other day and killed four people. There are dozens of high-speed tragedies around the country every summer. But you guys say those are not on Winnipesaukee so they are irrelevant. Has that rule changed? If so, I have a lot to write about. But there will always be exceptions and no one law is going to fix all problems or be obeyed by all. Murder is illegal and we still have murders and murderers. But does that mean we should not keep murder illegal?

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

Money is wasted when state representatives propose unnecessary amendments to a bill, when that money and time would be better spent dealing with the economy, unemployment, and budget shortfalls

I agree, but if this is really your motive, there are many larger fish to go after. You really aren't doing this just to save our legislators from wasting some time are you? Be honest.

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

This thread has gotten way off topic and has become a thread of name-calling.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I forgot. What was the original Topic..?? NB

We were talking about how nice it was out on the lake this summer and how there were no high-speed boating accidents.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Wow, I get busy at work and jump off the site for one day

I was actually worried about your disappearance. I thought there might have been a Trekkie convention somewhere (just razzing).

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

you do have a tendancy to stir or flame the threads. This makes you a center of attention. I don't know if this your intention or not but I for one would like to ask you nicely to please stop stirring the pot.

You see me as stirring the pot, and I see it the other way...to each his own. I'm the center of attention becasue I am almost the only one arguing against the 7 of you. My goal is not to go with the flow and agree with you guys. I have an opinion on this. It is the polar opposite of the opinion of the 7 of you, and that is not going to change. You guys need to accept that as I do. I don't accuse you of stirring the pot, being a troll, or lying every time you say something that I disagree with. I'm a big boy, I can take the heat. If you guys are going to give it out, you need to grow some skin.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

what I think is worse is that people try to use this accident as their motivation and use it to point towards the reason for or against the speed limit. Speed had nothing to do with it.
So lets stop using the littlefield accident as the reason to trumpet for speed limits. ... the speed limit would not have kept it from happening

See above. Speed was certainly a factor and this accident will/should always be at the center of this matter (as should Blizzards). Just saying there was no proof how fast they were going does not mean they were going slow. Just because you don't want us to keep bringing it up does not mean we can't or won't. They were both obviously and undeniably going too fast. When you guys turn an opinion about something you cannot know into a "fact", that is just discussion. When I say anything that you disagree with, it is a lie. You can't keep trying to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Only the man upstairs knows the truth and can judge.

Amen

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

See, this is what I was talking about above. This is a really rude and slanderous implication. If I made this statement, you guys would be jumping all over it and it would be the subject of twenty follow-ups. Yet it is so common in the opposers posts that when one of you make, it just slips though unnoticed. Are you saying that I am a child molster? Are you saying I am on par with child molesters? You guys really stoop too low sometimes.

Excuse me, but I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would remove my name from this section that you quoted. I absolutely did not state that in any way.

Originally Posted by chipj29

Excuse me, but I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would remove my name from this section that you quoted. I absolutely did not state that in any way.

Chip, I am very sorry for that mistake, and I have corrected it to properly credit the statement to Codeman. I don't blame you for getting upset and wanting to distance yourself from it. It was a really rude and uncalled-for thing to say by someone who claims to be so far above the fray.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by chip29

Excuse me, but I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would remove my name from this section that you quoted. I absolutely did not state that in any way.

Originally Posted by elchase

Chip, I am very sorry for that mistake, and I have corrected it to properly credit the statement to Codeman. I don't blame you for getting upset and wanting to distance yourself from it. It was a really rude and uncalled-for thing to say by someone who claims to be so far above the fray.

It was me, but I was not calling you a child molester nor comparing your evils on here to one. Bragging to be a devout catholic was a bit much... My point was not every devout catholic is an angel. You read into the rest.

Beyond that, I am out. EL is not worth my time or anyone elses on here.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

Chip, I am very sorry for that mistake, and I have corrected it to properly credit the statement to Codeman. I don't blame you for getting upset and wanting to distance yourself from it. It was a really rude and uncalled-for thing to say by someone who claims to be so far above the fray.

Thank you.

[OCDACTIVE]

Now that the season is over, has anyone actually heard if any tickets were ever issued? I "heard" one ticket but it was thrown out in court.

anyone know?

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Now that the season is over, has anyone actually heard if any tickets were ever issued? I "heard" one ticket but it was thrown out in court.

anyone know?

Season is not over for me yet....The MPs still have a chance to catch me traumatizing(insert sarcasm here) the Winni Community in my Performance Boat...

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Season is not over for me yet....The MPs still have a chance to catch me traumatizing(insert sarcasm here) the Winni Community in my Performance Boat...

yes there are definately some good days left on the water.. Have fun!

[VitaBene]

We went out yesterday afternoon/evening for a slow ride around Lee's Mills. Extremely quiet, a little cold- bring those blankets but the foliage was still looking good.

Enjoy the peace and quiet.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

We went out yesterday afternoon/evening for a slow ride around Lee's Mills. Extremely quiet, a little cold- bring those blankets but the foliage was still looking good.

Enjoy the peace and quiet.

sounds nice! I hear the water is pretty low. I haven't been up since August.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

You see me as stirring the pot, and I see it the other way...to each his own. I'm the center of attention becasue I am almost the only one arguing against the 7 of you. My goal is not to go with the flow and agree with you guys. I have an opinion on this. It is the polar opposite of the opinion of the 7 of you, and that is not going to change. You guys need to accept that as I do. I don't accuse you of stirring the pot, being a troll, or lying every time you say something that I disagree with. I'm a big boy, I can take the heat. If you guys are going to give it out, you need to grow some skin.

Who are the Magnificent Seven (7)? Sounds like a great movie- The Magnicent 7 vs The Lone Ranger (is Sunset Tonto??)

[Kracken]

I heard (from a reasonable source) that there was only one ticket written. It was late in the season and the operator would have gotten off with a warning if he were not belligerent to the officer. Does anybody have any more info?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Who are the Magnificent Seven (7)? Sounds like a great movie- The Magnicent 7 vs The Lone Ranger (is Sunset Tonto??)

No Kemo Sabe...me not know how to ride horse. Horse scare Tonto...horse go too fast.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

No Kemo Sabe...me not know how to ride horse. Horse scare Tonto...horse go too fast.

We should collect donations, lobby some politicians, and draft a bill to ban horses, but disguise it as something else...

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

We should collect donations, lobby some politicians, and draft a bill to ban horses, but disguise it as something else...

Tonto no want to ban horses, just make horses go slower. Tonto make mess in pants when horse gallop by too close.

[hazelnut]

Don,

How is this thread still open? This is ludicrous.

I vote for a shut down on this one.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Don,

How is this thread still open? This is ludicrous.

I vote for a shut down on this one.

If this thread were to be Closed...I would be ...Nodding Off while eating my oatmeal in front of this screen.. Older and Wiser. NB

BTW: Some of you people need to lighten up. The EL Man is just gearing up for a run for Congress on the Democrat side. ........Just sayin...

[VtSteve]

[QUOTE=gtagrip;108675]

Originally Posted by elchase

"A boat going admittedly over the SL limit hit and killed someone, and it is disingenuous to cite it in a SL discussion?"

O.K. This accident happened when? 2001, 2002? Can't quite remember. I don't think there was a speed limit law at that time so how could he be going over the speed limit? What's your point?

And by the way, I'm #8.

Maybe back to #7 again. After reading APS stories, and seeing the picture of the flipped boat sinking, I'm too scared to not support speed limits now. We "had" people getting run over by 15,000 pound Ocean-Offshore boats, using up all the available acres of the lake, crashing through docks, running into islands. You've all seen the pictures, APS's links to the dreadful crash threads.

With the SL in place, no longer are people scared to venture out in their normal-sized, historically-proper Winnipesaukee boat. People now feel free to canoe, kayak, sail, and yes, even relax. The waves are smaller due to the SL, so the shorelines are better-protected against erosion.

But mostly I have changed because APS not only listed the names of the reckless cowboys scaring the whits out of lake goers with their thunderously loud and fast boats, but I couldn't sleep anymore wondering whether a Ocean-Offshore boat was going to crash into my bedroom in the wee hours of the morning. After seeing the large, drunken thug driving the boat towards my window, wearing large, garish gold chains, I had a vision of these huge, 200 pound propellers zipping by my head as the 15,000 pound boat crushed my house. This is a vision I know thousands of lakefront owners no longer have thanks to the SL.

What's not to support? No longer will enormous Ocean-Offshore boats be scaring people off the lake, and perhaps many will come back and paddle their little hearts content. Seeing loons prosper after the oil slicks from a multitude of High-Speed Crashes, this is definitely worth it to everyone.

People used to ask, fearfully, When Will The Chaos and Mayhem End?

It has, it's all over now. Thanks APS, for taking me from the land of the blind to the land of the sighted.

[gtagrip]

[QUOTE=elchase;108655]
"A boat going admittedly over the SL limit hit and killed someone, and it is disingenuous to cite it in a SL discussion?"

O.K. This accident happened when? 2001, 2002? Can't quite remember. I don't think there was a speed limit law at that time so how could he be going over the speed limit? What's your point?

And by the way, I'm #8.

[NoBozo]

I was starting to get Cramps in my Index Finger after scroll wheeling through The ELs longish post. Being an old fart on a pension, I don't know if O'BamaCare will cover those symptoms. I may be a Victim. NB