Transportation votes to scuttle HB 162

JDeere · 03-13-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

wish all you speed limit advocates could be with me here in Ft Myers.The Intercoastal Waterway (ICU) on the Caloosahatchee River is a direct line from the Atlantic in Palm Beach to Ft Myers on the gulf coast.The speed limit is 25 mph and the only danger is from the 40' to 100' boats that throw up an enormous wake at that speed.Two of them,meeting in a narrow channel will bring up a 4 to 6 foot chop that will swamp a smaller boat that doesn't have sense to get out of the way....

Gee what a well thought out post. Your are right I think that there is no usage speed in narrow channel and those stupid smaller boats are most assuredly at fault fro not getting out the way. No way are the larger crafts responsible for their wakes and damage that they create. Hopefully NH will wake up and abolish no wake areas especially in the Weirs channel. We would not want any large wakes capsizing any idiot who does not have the common sense and decency to get out of the way.

fatlazyless · 03-13-2006, 09:12 AM

I think a lot of people vote their wallets and if they have spent a large sum on a speed boat, they will try to make a good argument for having no speed limit. Samian has mentioned that while there's nothing wrong with water and granola, that kayakers do not fill seats at restaurant tables, as the big boats do. Everyone probably votes their wallets, always have & always will, not a surprise.

If herds of hungry kayakers were in the habit of paddling over to area restaurants and lining up for the yankee pot roast, the chicken parmargiana al fredo with linquini in a white wine sauce, or the sweet & sour chicken with pork fried rice & an eggroll, then Samian would be making an argument for a speed limit to protect the beloved kayakers.

hoytglp · 03-13-2006, 03:06 PM

If the 150' rule would be enforced things would change a great deal on the lake, there would be areas that would be no wake zones without even putting up markers. No VOTE would be needed.

JK47 · 03-13-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDeere

Gee what a well thought out post. Your are right I think that there is no usage speed in narrow channel and those stupid smaller boats are most assuredly at fault fro not getting out the way. No way are the larger crafts responsible for their wakes and damage that they create. Hopefully NH will wake up and abolish no wake areas especially in the Weirs channel. We would not want any large wakes capsizing any idiot who does not have the common sense and decency to get out of the way.

I think you misread the post. His point is that the wake endangering small boats is created by large cabin cruisers traveling in the ~25 mph range. He went on to say that the go-fast boats create a much smaller wake. And yes, it is a good point which has been brought up in the debate before.

How often do you see huge wakes given off by a Formula traveling in the 45-50+ mph range? Never. On the other hand, how often do you see huge wakes on the lake that are produced from a cabin cruiser traveling in the 15-30 mph range? Quite often.

SAMIAM · 03-13-2006, 04:48 PM

Thanks for sticking up for me JK....that was my point exactly.
I think the speed limit backers are getting angry and unsettled because they see things are not going their way.
No need to be touchy...Geez

ITD · 03-13-2006, 05:12 PM

You know after reading the article FLL posted the speed limit is very much up in the air. I got a kick out of the seacoast Senators who are more than willing to impose a limit on Lake Winnipesaukee as long as they don't get one on the inland flats. They know there is no problem, but I'm sure they've been badgered, cajoled and threatened by the likes of Island Lover and Fat Jack. The hype and inaccurate reports about how dangerous Winni. is supposed to be have had an effect. If the Senators who are teetering on this issue would just take a look at the actual statistics on Winni. and NH, they would see that there is no problem with speed and the small number of accidents that have happened were due to other circumstances. The one fatal incident that keeps being brought up wasn't even close to being a speed related accident, a speed limit just would not have helped that poor person.

The senate committee did the right thing voting against this speed limit, hopefully the senate will follow their example.

03-13-2006, 09:12 AM	#2
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	....time to think boating! I think a lot of people vote their wallets and if they have spent a large sum on a speed boat, they will try to make a good argument for having no speed limit. Samian has mentioned that while there's nothing wrong with water and granola, that kayakers do not fill seats at restaurant tables, as the big boats do. Everyone probably votes their wallets, always have & always will, not a surprise. If herds of hungry kayakers were in the habit of paddling over to area restaurants and lining up for the yankee pot roast, the chicken parmargiana al fredo with linquini in a white wine sauce, or the sweet & sour chicken with pork fried rice & an eggroll, then Samian would be making an argument for a speed limit to protect the beloved kayakers. Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-13-2006 at 03:21 PM. Reason: spelling

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-13-2006, 03:06 PM	#3
hoytglp Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	If the 150' rule would be enforced things would change a great deal on the lake, there would be areas that would be no wake zones without even putting up markers. No VOTE would be needed.

03-13-2006, 04:48 PM	#5
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,937 Thanks: 349 Thanked 1,708 Times in 602 Posts	Thanks for sticking up for me JK....that was my point exactly. I think the speed limit backers are getting angry and unsettled because they see things are not going their way. No need to be touchy...Geez

03-13-2006, 05:12 PM	#6
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,953 Thanks: 484 Thanked 703 Times in 393 Posts	You know after reading the article FLL posted the speed limit is very much up in the air. I got a kick out of the seacoast Senators who are more than willing to impose a limit on Lake Winnipesaukee as long as they don't get one on the inland flats. They know there is no problem, but I'm sure they've been badgered, cajoled and threatened by the likes of Island Lover and Fat Jack. The hype and inaccurate reports about how dangerous Winni. is supposed to be have had an effect. If the Senators who are teetering on this issue would just take a look at the actual statistics on Winni. and NH, they would see that there is no problem with speed and the small number of accidents that have happened were due to other circumstances. The one fatal incident that keeps being brought up wasn't even close to being a speed related accident, a speed limit just would not have helped that poor person. The senate committee did the right thing voting against this speed limit, hopefully the senate will follow their example.