65 mph on the Broads only

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Really? You are somewhat misinformed.

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. — Aug 2015 WMUR News
Authorities say a swimmer is recovering from injuries he suffered when he was struck by a motor boat in Lake Winnipesaukee.

The State Police Marine Patrol says an 18-foot outboard fishing boat carrying two men struck the swimmer Sunday morning in Moultonborough.

Both occupants of the boat said they saw a person in a kayak, but they did not see the man swimming alongside the kayaker.

The victim was taken onto the fishing boat and brought to shore. He was being treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

And this is the report from Capt. Dunleavey:. Spoiler alert...the boat was going 65 MPH.

In response to your request we spoke about earlier this week, specifically related to accident on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last ten years. Marine Patrol has completed an extensive manual search of its accident data.

The following accidents have been identified as being related to speeds potentially in excess of limits set by RSA 270-D:2 X:

2013
July 7th 5:00 pm Operator of PWC (Personal Watercraft) fell into handle bars 45 mph
July 20th 8:00am Operator struck underwater object and boat sunk 45 mph

2015
August 23rd 8:17am Powerboat struck swimmer 65+mph

2018
September 2nd 2:56pm PWC fall over board 50 mph


Sincerely,

Timothy C. Dunleavy
Marine Patrol Captain

Living in the area where the swimmer was struck and knowing people that where involved in responding to the situation, while emergency crews where in route.... I don't believe the 65 MPH for the boat speed is correct. I also believe that the swimmer and kayaker where in the middle of a channel, which isn't exactly the safest place to be swimming... I don't mean this as an excuse of any kind, but to attribute this accident to speed, is not correct.... there where many extenuating circumstances that lead to this issue.

[John Mercier]

So what did the boater have for other extenuating circumstances?
I only question that one because the implication is that Tim provided false information.

[sunset on the dock]

Whatever the circumstances, I suspect Capt. Dunleavey would not have recorded 65 MPH+ without reasonable probability of knowing that this number is correct. And wherever the swimmer was, it shows that at 65 MPH (or so) one's ability to spot and avoid danger is impaired. So what about a skier who has fallen in the Broads? Will he/she be seen? Or are we to give over the Broads just to the speed boaters?

But whatever the circumstances, this flies in the face of Woodsy's assertion that there have not been any daytime speeding related accidents.

Many lakes, Lake George for example, have speed limits. I suspect ours will stand as presently written.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Whatever the circumstances, I suspect Capt. Dunleavey would not have recorded 65 MPH+ without reasonable probability of knowing that this number is correct. And wherever the swimmer was, it shows that at 65 MPH (or so) one's ability to spot and avoid danger is impaired. So what about a skier who has fallen in the Broads? Will he/she be seen? Or are we to give over the Broads just to the speed boaters?

But whatever the circumstances, this flies in the face of Woodsy's assertion that there have not been any daytime speeding related accidents.

Many lakes, Lake George for example, have speed limits. I suspect ours will stand as presently written.

So I am going to here, what I see is you typing a response, indicating that Capt. Dunleavey, made a statement as such, however where is the official document from him stating that..... If I hear it from him, or I see something that indicates it came from other then word of mouth I have no choice but to agree with the statement.

The last time I looked into this accident, there was nothing published from a detailed perspective, only that speed was not the only contributing factor. There was and never has been an argument other than that the Boat operator was at fault, and failed "to keep a proper lookout".... they probably violated the 150' rule etc. etc......

At the end of the day, speed is not the problem... Everyone I have ever known, that has a boat capable of 45+ MPH, doesn't run into crowded areas, or by swimmers and kayakers..... I guess the unfortunate message here, is that responsible people have to pay the price for idiots.... At this point in my life I have no dog in this fight, I happily own a pontoon boat that tops out at about 22 MPH.... but at the end of the day, I hate to see regulations come into play, that give a false sense of security... and that is all the speed limit does......

[sunset on the dock]

Most people would not choose to picnic on the median strip of I-93. Nor do they want to be fishing, sailing, or family boating and have some Go Fast Be Loud boat zoom by them legally at 65+ MPH and only 150' away. We know people push the 45 MPH law. A lot. Give them 65 MPH and they'll push that limit as well. And however one spins it, a boat going 65 MPH did not see a swimmer (unless you're accusing Capt. Dunleavey of being untruthful...though you seem to be indicating such. Perhaps you need to contact the MP and further inform us).
As noted earlier by me, 80% of the NH House supported 45/30 with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake. These reps listened to their constituents.

[lakewinnie]

I don't know how many times I have posted this view, but I still believe that wakeboats throwing monster wakes are much more of a safety issue than performance boats going faster than 45 mph. That's been what I have observed on the lake over the past 30+ years. I'm not saying we should ban certain boats or pass more ridiculous laws that make people feel good but do not solve any problems, but to say "go fast be loud" boats are a safety issue, in isolation, is not a fair statement (I believe).

i would rank most dangerous as follows:

1) Drunks
2) Drunks
3) Drunks
4) Operator not paying attention
5) Wake boats throwing huge wakes
6) Monster cabin cruisers throwing big wakes

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I don't know how many times I have posted this view, but I still believe that wakeboats throwing monster wakes are much more of a safety issue than performance boats going faster than 45 mph. That's been what I have observed on the lake over the past 30+ years. I'm not saying we should ban certain boats or pass more ridiculous laws that make people feel good but do not solve any problems, but to say "go fast be loud" boats are a safety issue, in isolation, is not a fair statement (I believe).

i would rank most dangerous as follows:

1) Drunks
2) Drunks
3) Drunks
4) Operator not paying attention
5) Wake boats throwing huge wakes
6) Monster cabin cruisers throwing big wakes

I agree that alcohol, wake boats and the other things on your list are problems. But they are not in question here, so they are beside the point...

There's no doubt that the Be Loud aspect is a big reason for the opposition to keeping the speed limit as-is. It's kind of funny that the folks who want to increase the limit keep ignoring/dismissing this and asserting that safety is the ONLY reason, then through up a whole bunch of smoke around safety.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I agree that alcohol, wake boats and the other things on your list are problems. But they are not in question here, so they are beside the point...

There's no doubt that the Be Loud aspect is a big reason for the opposition to keeping the speed limit as-is. It's kind of funny that the folks who want to increase the limit keep ignoring/dismissing this and asserting that safety is the ONLY reason, then through up a whole bunch of smoke around safety.

They could include a limit on noise within the proposal, and that may get them more votes.
I wouldn't use the previous argument as number 4 is not going to be improved with higher rates of travel.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They could include a limit on noise within the proposal, and that may get them more votes.

There is already a decibel limit law for all boats in the State of NH...

86 dB measured at 50 feet for any boat mfg. before 1978, 84 dB for boats mfg. between 1978 and 1981, 82 dB for any boat mfg. after 1981

Dan

[John Mercier]

Then the may need a kicker in the proposal for more enforcement.

If the major argument is speed, they would need to have a trial period to test if the 45mph is really necessary... that can easily be placed in the bill with a sunset clause.

But it may not be enough without enhancing enforcement on the other issues that keep them from getting the number of votes necessary to get it out of committee with an OTP.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If the major argument is speed, they would need to have a trial period to test if the 45mph is really necessary... that can easily be placed in the bill with a sunset clause.

This exact trial period was done years ago before the speed limit was enacted...If your bored...very bored...look through the speed limit debate archives for all the pertinent information regarding this.

Dan

[Garcia]

After much debate and deliberation, the speed limit was passed. Since then, the number of boats and jet skis has increased dramatically. It's a fools errand to change the speed limit. Time to let it go and move on.

[John Mercier]

Not very bored.
But I would presume that all the issues relating to the entire lake would not come into play for just the Broads.

Radio/stereo use is a newer issue. Not really related to speed. But maybe enough to get more committee members on-board with at least a trial change in the limit.

As I noted with my tenure for the OHRV... the issues, though seemingly the same, change dramatically over just a few years. Technology changes, usage patterns change, number of vehicles change...

But not sure that it changes that much from one legislative session to the next...