Proposed Law

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? Without looking it up, what are the 4 largest lakes in the state and what is their size comparison to Winnipesaukee? Let me get you started. The next closest lake to Winnipesaukee in size is your beloved Squam. If your close calls took place there then your speed limit is not working. Squam is considerably shallower and rockier than Winni and also only 15% of the size. Big difference. How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam? On Ossipee? Umbagog? Newfound? the Connecticuits? Winnisquam? Massabesic? Having been on many of these lakes myself I have not seen a speed issue other than an occasional rogue bass boat going for a beer run. After Squam the next closest lake in size is 10% of the size on Winni. Please tell us where your close calls have occurred so we can hand you a shovel to dig a deeper hole.

How about your car or are you a peddler and a paddler? How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Hey, I didn’t bring up the environment issues – you did! I never said that we should ban all powerboats.

I just found it humorous that that you needed to stoop so low as to try to make an environmental issue out of my supposed need to pee in the lake, in an attempt to poke fun at me.

My intentions here are only to support a lake speed limit because I honestly believe that one of the best ways to make the lake safer is to slow down the fastest boats. I have the right to support this bill – just as you have the right to oppose it. But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

Well, maybe you should take the time to read my past posts, rather than accuse me of writing something that I never wrote. I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum.

I have paddled over 500 miles on NH's lakes in the past two summers - many of these miles was on Winni. My best friend and I had our first close call with a high-speed powerboat the very first time that we kayaked on the lake. Since that episode I’ve had a difficult time convincing her to kayak on Winni.

I've always been comletely honest here - I’ve never once insinuated anything. In my very first post I openly stated that I had never kayaked on Winni before – which is why I originally joined this forum – to learn more about kayaking on the lake. I’ve never once implied that Winni is a terrifying place – if it was, I would not kayak on it. I merely stated that I feel is very dangerous to allow powerboats to continue to travel at unlimited speed on a lake that is also used by small human-powered boats.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? . . . How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam?

I’ve had close calls on several of these lakes – I don’t feel that I need to document every encounter here – I live only 3 miles from Moore Reservoir, which is one of the lakes where I’ve had numerous close calls (since I paddle there the most). A boat doesn’t have to be a 38’ fountain to be dangerous to a kayak – and many bass boats (as well as other types of powerboats - and even jet skiis) can and do go faster than 45 mph. My best friend and I were nearly run over by a high speed powerboat on the Connecticut River two summers ago.

How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

Hey, I never posted that I’m in favor of raising the speed limit – in fact I posted that I didn’t believe that bill would get very far, for environmental reasons.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

..............But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.................



............... I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum..............

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

The personal attack song is getting old too. The world doesn't revolve around you, no one is "personally" attacking you. You know this is a passionate subject, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I won't stand idly by and let you post all these stories of mayhem and danger when I can pretty much guarantee that over the past 10 years I have spent more time on the lake than you and I know that your portrayal is wrong.

Your chance of having all these "close encounters" with boats going over 45 mph is pretty much nil since most boats travel the lake at less than 45 mph. That means these "close encounters" you have had are with boats going less than the proposed speed limit ergo the speed limit will not help you.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted

I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

- Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating,

I know that your portrayal is wrong

is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And stating, "I know that your portrayal is wrong" is also calling me a liar.

Get used to it.

"They" said the same thing to me when I started the thread "Close Call Today".

When I finally located that thread-starter just now, I found one "Go-Fast" has a problem obeying New Hampshire's boating navigation laws.

Guess who that might be?

HINT:

"...this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Oh, I can't STAND the irony!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying.

Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

From the actual results, eleven (11) boats out of 3800+ were clocked at a speed above 50 mph, eleven. This is over 135 hours of checking. Now they don't specify if those eleven came by in one group or if they occurred randomly throughout the case. I will assume that they occurred randomly throughout the test, because that's the best case for your stories. So if they occurred randomly we could spread out the occurances and say that once for every 10 hours of testing, a boat went by at greater than 50 mph. Not very good for your stories. I want to be fair here, so in the report it states that 36 boats were clocked at greater than 45 mph, less than 1% of the total, but still better for your stories (many "close calls" on the lake). Again we'll assume they randomly occur throughout the test (better for your stories) so over 135 hours, you might see 1 boat over 45mph in about 3 hours.

So now lets talk about a close call. A close call, as you describe them to bolster your pro SL view, would have to be a boat, travelling greater than 45 mph, coming closer than 150 ft to your kayak, just like you say in one of your posts.

So I've laid out the case, for your "close call", in the hours that you are out there, if 100 boats go by you (unlikely), the one that is going over 45 mph comes within 150 feet of your kayak (which is extremely unlikely). Now to claim this has happened many times, well I'm calling BS.

I think you were legitimately scared per one of your posts, ON THE CONNETICUT RIVER, years ago. This has messed up your perception of power boats to the point that you think they are all travelling above 45mph and within 150 feet of you. It just can't be true.

Enacting a law, on faulty perceptions, totally ignoring a study that determines there isn't a problem is nuts. I'm telling you now, a 45 mph speed limit isn't going to help you.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying. Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

I think your analysis is a stretch at best. First, you are criticizing them for spending 135 hours of radar testing in the 11 weeks that the test was run? That is quite a bit, especially with no extra funding or manpower allotted to help. If you are not happy with this then how are you going to fee l if it passes and the manpower or funding is not allotted to enforce it? The people pushing for this clearly have stated in another topic that they don't care about funding it and think it will take care of itself. The joke is on you.

The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue.

The study was done during the busy end of the summer, and clearly was concentrated on busier days of the week and daylight hours. If you have spent as much time on the lake as many of us do this may be easier to comprehend. Show up on a Monday afternoon and what do you get? An empty lake. Rainy days? No traffic at all. You did not add any factor in for bad weather days into your calculations. Chances are the concentration of studies was done during busier times in order to achieve catching 3852 boats on radar.

Do you think they zapped every boat that went by? Probably not. Multiple boats going by at the same time cannot all be clocked effectively. My house is right around the corner from Area A so I was able to witness first hand how much they were there and the traffic involved. It is a very busy zone, one of the busiest on the lake which is why it was chosen. So isn't Area B.
I am sure they clocked me a few times.

There are so many different factors that could be thrown in to this that I am not even touching on. They did their job, give them a break. The results were inconclusive of any speed issue. Feel free to analyze away though!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.



I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer? 3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake. You lost me on your discussion of Man hours. If there were two people on the boat for 135 hours, then that would result in 270 Man hours of labor. Not really relevant unless you want to discuss what the study cost.

All your spin, and shaky analysis still doesn't negate the fact that only 1 out of 100 boats was going over 45 mph. Certainly not the "wild west" talked about by speed limit proponents.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that might save your life someday. Quit worrying about boats going over 45 mph, they're not the problem. Keep your eye out for captain bonehead, tooling along at 25 mph in his pontoon boat sipping a martini watching the scenery. While you're straining to see that one speedboat zipping by at 50 mph, captain bonehead might just run you over, he's a much bigger threat and a speed limit won't deter him.

But then this isn't really about safety is it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer?

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.
3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.
4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

[GWC...]

Was curious as to why Evenstar started posting, again?

The Bill is up for debate, again.

Originally Posted by online Citizen By GEOFF CUNNINGHAM Jr.
Article Date: Thursday, January 24, 2008

Derek Durbin, the environmental policy director for the nonprofit New Hampshire Lakes Association, said he is confident that the Democratic majority in the House will see HB847 making the cut.

"I think it's definitely going to pass and I think it will do so by a reasonable margin," said Durbin on Wednesday.

Durbin said the repeated filing of legislation pushing for a speed limit during the last ten years has probably wore on those on both sides of the issue, but he said it is still of great interest to many residents.

A similar bill that passed in the House was killed in the Senate in March of 2006 and a proposed pilot speed limit on the lake this past summer never materialized.

"I think people are still pretty fired up about it (but) I think some people are a little tired ... they've been at it for 15 years," said Durbin.

The Lakes Association is pushing for the passage of the bill...

[John A. Birdsall]

I think that everybody's rights can be looked too and safety be taken care of. As one that was in agreement with speed zones, not making no wake zones, but curtailing speed within Alton Bay, Wolfeboro, Weirs and other bays leaving the broads for speed, I think we can do away with the speeding issue if everybody that has a boat would agree to obey the 150' rule and other navigation rules. Plus remember courtesy toward your fellow man goes a long way. If those rules were obeyed by all whether it be a kayak, or a rum runner or anywhere inbetween then we would be having fun and a safer lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

[Cal]

The most ironic part is the all the people who are calling foul on the results of the test (that was done by professionals) are the same people who would be swearing by it if the results went their way

[fatlazyless]

Lawmakers expect to be bombarded with e-mails for another week as House postpones action on boat speed limit bill

By Chris Dornin
Golden Dome News
top of page 1, Laconia Daily Sun

CONCORD - House members will have to endure seven more days of e-mails from both sides of the polarized debate over a proposed 45 mph boat speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, with 25 mph at night. If House Bill 847, sponsored by Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) becomes law, violations would appear in the speeder's motor vehicle driving record. State reps were bracing for a long and heated floor fight yesterday that never materialized.

When House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) called for discussion of the bill, Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) asked as chairman of the House Transportation Committee to hold off doing anything until Wednesday, Jan 30.

"This afternoon my good friend, the minority leader (Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton), asked to postpone the bill due to the unavailability of people to oppose it," Ryan explained.

Whalley later explained that Rep. Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) was absent. Packard, the former chairman of House Transportation, wrote the opposition blurb in the House calender, warning that HB 847 would punish all boat operators for the irresponsible actions of a very few.

He also cited a Marine Patrol study this summer showing the legislation was unneeded. Officers clocked 3,852 vessels and caught 83 moving between 41 and 50 mph, eight between 51 and 60, and three between 60 and 62 mph.

"A far greater percentage of people disobey our speed limits on our roads,' Packard wrote. "Do we really believe that by passing this law that this small percentage of inconsiderate and irresponsible people will change their habits?"

Whalley said most of the citizens he's heard from live on lakefronts, and they generally want to regulate boat speeds. The marina owners have split about evenly, he said.

"I pay more attention to what individuals are saying, but I'm not convinced yet there's a problem," Whalley said.

One moment made clear how hard the stakeholders are hounding their public servants. Rep. Tony Simon (D-Manchester) went to the podium for a joke on Ryan that drew 10 seconds of laughter and applause. Several people stood up.

"Our friend from Franklin has just arranged for all of us to be inundated for another week with emails," Simon said. "I suggest we all forward them to the member from Franklin. He will do a statistical analysis for us."

More than a hundred people packed a hearing last spring on a version of the bill that capped the speed on all lakes. Strong feelings emerged on both sides. Sensing an impasse, the Transportation Committee held the bill for further study that led to a crackdown on just the largest lake. That attempt at a compromise left the committee with 7-6 endorsement and strong prospects for a floor battle.

Pilliod said he has gotten hundreds of letters and e-mails supporting his bill, and called them well informed and sophistocated. Each was different from the rest. Lawmakers are used to getting identical messages on an issue from different people.

"If we can get this to the Senate," he said before the postponement, "they're going to get thousands of e-mails on it. It's not just people who feel threatened by these boats. It's duck and loons. Merrill Faye of Faye's Boatyard (in Gilford) called me to say it's hurting his business. He was bananas about it."

Pilliod got a similar bill through the House in 2006 when Republicans controlled the legislature. It died in the Senate.

"I've been surprised and pleased to see a lot of Democrats are for it this time," Pilliod said. "It's not just good for people. It's good for the environment."

Sandy Helve of Meredith has been orchestrating some of that grassroots stir as president of the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety, a nonprofit organization claiming thousands of supporters, many of them shorefront homeowners all around the lake. Their allies, she said, include business and marina owners, full-time and summer lake residents, kayakers, anglers, canoeists, sailors, rowers, and children's camp operators. Her people showed up in force to work the corridors outside Representatives Hall.

"These fast boats are driving people like us off the lake," Helve said. "I don't care what that study showed. They're going 70, 80, 90 mph when the Marine Patrol is gone, every day of the week, all day and all night. They can't stop in time. A lot of people feel scared and intimidated."

Warren Hutchins of the Weirs section of Laconia lives on the lake and serves on Helve's executive committee. He said the group has been digging deep to hold its' own with the commercially funded trade associations.

"We began pushing this four years ago," Hutchins said. " The people who can afford these big, high performance cigarette boats are all wealthy. But they're a very small part of all the boaters.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) said the study of speeders weakens the case for a limit.

"It showed there's not that much of a problem," Chandler said. Reminded the bill sunsets after three years, he said, "Once something is in, it's hard to get it out."

Cosponsors of the bill include Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford), Rep. Betsey Patten (R-Moultonboro) and Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Union).

...................

Laconia Daily Sun
Chris Dornin. Golden Dome News
Thursday, Jan 24, 2008




...................

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

The most ironic part is the all the people who are calling foul on the results of the test (that was done by professionals) are the same people who would be swearing by it if the results went their way

Cal

If the study is accurate, and no boats are speeding, then enforcement will not be a problem.

Perhaps you should explain that to Woodsy in the other thread. He thinks enforcement will be a huge problem, and cost lots of money.

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. If there is a speeding problem now, then I submit we need a speed limit.

Anyway the real question about the study is its accuracy. Not who it favors. I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic. Clearly Woodsy believes enforcement will be extremely difficult, expensive and disruptive to the power boating community. If the study were accurate, how could that be so?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Cal

If the study is accurate, and no boats are speeding, then enforcement will not be a problem.

Perhaps you should explain that to Woodsy in the other thread. He thinks enforcement will be a huge problem, and cost lots of money.

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. If there is a speeding problem now, then I submit we need a speed limit.

Anyway the real question about the study is its accuracy. Not who it favors. I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic. Clearly Woodsy believes enforcement will be extremely difficult, expensive and disruptive to the power boating community. If the study were accurate, how could that be so?

Why do you call it a speeding problem? What incidents/accidents have been the result of speeding on the lake? How many have there been in the last 5 years?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Why do you call it a speeding problem? What incidents/accidents have been the result of speeding on the lake? How many have there been in the last 5 years?

Since you asked for it, here's my definition of a speeding problem:

1.) Boats that are traveling at over 15 times as fast as the maximum speed of other boats.

2.) Personally having powerboats come well within my 150 foot zone, because they don't see me in time and are traveling too fast to stay further away.

3.) Knowing that I have less than one second to live, unless a speeding boat is able to avoid hitting me in that last second.

4.) Having friends who won't paddle with me on Winni, because "powerboats goes so fast there."

5.) The fact that Winni isn't even listed in kayak and canoe guidebooks as a lake to paddle on.

When people like me have posted of the problems that we have personally experienced on the lake - which are a direct result of high speeds, we are made fun of, called liars, told that we are exagerating, and told that we have unreasonable fears.

Apparently you'll only consider speed to be a problem when someone like me is killed by a speeding boat. The problem exists, and everyone knows it. Some people are just too selfish to admit it.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

4.) Having friends who won't paddle with me on Winni, because "powerboats goes so fast there."

5.) The fact that Winni isn't even listed in kayak and canoe guidebooks as a lake to paddle on.

Some people are just too selfish to admit it.

Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad...

and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary.

Why?

Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the [strike]reasons[/strike] excuses for your fears.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad... and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary. Why? Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the [strike]reasons[/strike] excuses for your fears.

So your mature response is to make fun of me (again).

Let's see, the pro-speedlimit group argues that a speedlimit will make the lake safer for everyone. And the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters. Which group is more like a spoiled 2-year-old?

There is nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to use - because of the high speeds of some powerboats. My kayaking friends are not timid people. If the lake is so safe, why isn't it listed in a single paddling guide? Squam is listed - and so isn't lake Champlain (which is considerably larger than Winni).

I have posted (many times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that, when they are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet. It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit. For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations, which will make the lake safer for everyone.

As far as making myself more visible: My 16 foot sea kayak has a bright red upper hull, a white lower hull, my paddle blades are bright orange, my PFD is red, and my dry top is bright orange. My best friend's kayak is just like mine, only it's upper hull is bright yellow. Yet some high-speed boat operators still break the 150 foot rule before they notice us in time.

Speed is the issue here. In good weather, I can usually spot other kayaks when they are a mile away. It's amazing how much more you can see (or notice) when you just slow down.

High-speed boaters have even hit islands on Winni - I guess we need to make islands more visible as well.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad... and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary. Why? Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the [strike]reasons[/strike] excuses for your fears.

You really don’t have any right here to make fun of my posts, just because you don’t agree with me.
There’s nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to boat on.
How is supporting a lake speed limit bill being selfish? This bill only requires the fastest boats to slow down to what I and many others consider to be a reasonable speed. It doesn’t ban any type of boat from any part of the lake.
Making the lake(s) safer is the reason that most NH residents are in favor of the lake speed limit bill. The “right” to go faster than 45 mph is the main reason against it. I testified at last year’s transportation committee hearing and heard all the testimonies. It was obvious that most those in opposition felt that their “right” to go fast was more important than the safety concerns of others – because it is “fun to go fast”. So which side is acting more like a spoiled two-year-old?

My 16-foot sea kayak’s upper hull is bright red, it’s lower hull is white, the blades of my paddle are bright orange, my drytop is bright orange, and my PFD is red. My friend’s kayak has a bright yellow upper hull. I really don’t know how anyone can not see us! Yet some high-speed boaters have not noticed us in time to stay out of our 150 foot zone.

The 150 foot rule isn’t protecting us if others are traveling so fast that they don’t notice us in time. Speed is the problem here, not visibility. I don’t have trouble seeing other kayaks – but I’m traveling around 5 mph, not at 60 or 70mph.

Here's a video of what 70MPH looks like: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695 Would this guy be able to see a kayak in time? It is extremely dangerous to continue to allow speeds of 70mph (and faster) on lakes that are used by much smaller, and much slower boats.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

I think the opposition is quite clear, speeding is not a problem. This is why the opposition's stance is that a speed limit is clearly not needed. The studies are inconclusive of a speeding problem on the lake. The lack of speed related accidents and deaths further proves this.

Woodsy's problem with enforcement is the cost. Who will pay to purchase the new gear? The training? Added manpower? If we are going to take the time to put this law into place then it should be enforced. Laws written with the intent of never being enforced are not worth the paper they are written on. Whether or not there is truly a problem is up to you. The fact remains that it will cost $$$ to patrol and enforce it regardless of if they catch anyone. So, if they patrol for 90 days and do not catch anyone should they simply stop? What will happen then if there was an incident after those 90 days and someone got hurt? Who takes the heat then? MP for not enforcing would be the first target after the parties involved. Maybe then the crosshairs should point to Bear Island for not caring about protecting anyone because they did not care about enforcement and simply wanted a revenge law passed.

How can you honestly want this law so bad yet care less that any enforcement takes place??? What is the real motive? I think we already know...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Cal

ys. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. ?

Gotta love this mentality.Even if we don't need a law let's put one on the books anyway.Can't people see through all this nonsense?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Cal

I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic.

Perhaps YOU should explain this to the professionals to did the survey. I'm sure they would disagree.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

Perhaps YOU should explain this to the professionals to did the survey. I'm sure they would disagree.

I did speak to one and he did not disagree. They performed the tests the way their politically motivated boss told them to.

Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I did speak to one and he did not disagree. They performed the tests the way their politically motivated boss told them to.

Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this.

In other words, no amount of testing can be done that would convince you speed is not a problem. Remove "clearly marked boat" from your sentence and substitute "stopped boat" or "guy standing with radar gun in boat" and your argument will be the same when the data shows that there is no problem. How do I know there is no speed problem on the lake?? Because I spend most of the summer on the lake and only occasionally see a boat going over 45 mph.

I don't know what sane political motivation would exist for a public safety official to lie about whether the lake has a speed issue or not. It just doesn't make sense and in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds a little paranoid. I see no gain for the guy to lie or manipulate one way or the other.

That's what this whole SL campaign has been about, scare tactics, paranoia and exclusion. Time to stop this madness.........

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

I don't know what sane political motivation would exist for a public safety official to lie about whether the lake has a speed issue or not..........

How about a future job in the boating industry?

It is quite common for public officials to take high paying jobs in the industry they once regulated.

[fatlazyless]

No way, no way, no way! Whenever I see a green & bronze state trooper perched behind a snowbank, or the black & white Meredith PD set up on Pleasant St, what I do is to put the pedal to the metal. It's all about reverse psychcology, whatever that means, and doing just the opposite of what is assumed, or something,,,,big words.....sounds impressive! Works for me! Hey, New Hampshire is probably unique from here all the way to Wyoming as being an ' automobile insurance optional' type of a state. What-Me-Worry....I can always pedal a bicycle!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I did speak to one and he did not disagree. They performed the tests the way their politically motivated boss told them to.

Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this.

So how did they perform the tests ? Given there weren't speed limits in place in places where speed was measured, why would anyone slow down seeing an MP boat standing off in the distance ? Were all the MP boats marked ? Mostly I want to ask where I, or anyone, can get the conditions the test results were measured under.

Where is former director Barrett working these days ?

[Bear Islander]

I was answering the question as I was asked. However if the shoe fits...

It's my opinion that the only reason for the study was to delay or derail speed limit legislation. And that those responsible are thereby endangering the lives of the public they are paid to protect.

I would like to give those responsible the benefit of the doubt, but it's not easy. It is hard to believe that boating safety professionals could truly think the lake is safer without speed limits. In fact it's almost impossible for me to accept that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

All true above. Frankly people would be amazed at what little rights they actually have. Freedom of speech ... well not so much really ... political speech and artistic expression have been ruled protected but anything else falls under the will of the people. Think you have the right to marry the person you love .... ha !

So let's come to speed laws, be they on the lake on on land. What "we" want is reasonable limits should they be needed. It's not a question of rights perse but rather on how much Govt limitation we're willing to accept. That the Govt has the power to impose all manner of restriction doesn't make it "right", it's just that it's the best way we humans have of trying to decide what to do. In talking about reasonable restrictions I have to bring up the old NMSL of 55 mph. Did you ... or pretty much anyone ... agree with that ? I'll guess 'no' given how ignored that law was. Why was that ? I ask this question because the answer goes to the heart of the whole debate.

What's a reasonable restriction ? What makes it so ?

I maintain that a blanket restriction of 45 mph across all of Winni and at all times is too restrictive and better could be done.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

All true above. Frankly people would be amazed at what little rights they actually have. Freedom of speech ... well not so much really ... political speech and artistic expression have been ruled protected but anything else falls under the will of the people. Think you have the right to marry the person you love .... ha !

So let's come to speed laws, be they on the lake on on land. What "we" want is reasonable limits should they be needed. It's not a question of rights perse but rather on how much Govt limitation we're willing to accept. That the Govt has the power to impose all manner of restriction doesn't make it "right", it's just that it's the best way we humans have of trying to decide what to do. In talking about reasonable restrictions I have to bring up the old NMSL of 55 mph. Did you ... or pretty much anyone ... agree with that ? I'll guess 'no' given how ignored that law was. Why was that ? I ask this question because the answer goes to the heart of the whole debate.

What's a reasonable restriction ? What makes it so ?

I maintain that a blanket restriction of 45 mph across all of Winni and at all times is too restrictive and better could be done.

Finally something we can agree on. 25/45 would not have been my first choice. In fact I have always thought a horsepower limit was the way to go. But HB847 is better than the nothing we have now.

It would have been better if the opposition had come up with a viable compromise or alternative instead of the "No Limits!" stance that is doomed to lose in the long run.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Finally something we can agree on. 25/45 would not have been my first choice. In fact I have always thought a horsepower limit was the way to go. But HB847 is better than the nothing we have now.

But that (better than nothing) doesn't make it the thing to advocate. So let me ask, if you were King what would the law be ? and why ?

Why a HP limit since HP doesn't regulate speed as can be evidenced by PWCs.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

But that (better than nothing) doesn't make it the thing to advocate. So let me ask, if you were King what would the law be ? and why ?

Why a HP limit since HP doesn't regulate speed as can be evidenced by PWCs.

My choices are HB847 or nothing, I choose HB847. It's like when you vote for president next November. We will only have two choices.

A horsepower limit does more to address pollution, water quality, and erosion.

I posted this last summer.

If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me.

[Cal]

To prove a point(or at least try)how rediculous 25/45 is in my own opinion. Ever been out on a moonless night. I did one night from Weirs Beach to the Naswa. Not bad till I passed Naswa then it was like a black hole , 25 mph would be ludicrous. I turned around and headed back to the Naswa were I was staying. So people who want 45 limit on a clear Wednesday afternoon would be willing to allow 25 in pitch darkness. Sounds to me like they have their head somewhere awfully dark or they're just out there where the bus doesn't stop anymore.
I'd be willing to give 10 mph at night for 60 mph in daylight. There you go , I give 15...you give 15...even trade
And this , Bear Islander , may have saved your friend in the Wellcraft that fateful night two and a half years ago , regardless of how much alcohol was ingested.
Good night folks

[winnidiver]

Just some thoughts.
Most weekends you can't go over 45 without beating yourself and your boat to death.
If you look at the way hiway speed is enforced I would guess you can probably go 60 without a ticket.if the speed limit were 45.
If you go out early you can probably go as fast as you want no one is around.
I know everyone here is a careful boater who always uses common sense,but Go though Eagle anytime on a weekend.Or take ride up past Arey's on
a weekend morning or afternoon when the crowd is going out or coming in, and if you are honest you will admit that most people are too stupid or lazy to follow he rules.If two boats passing each other slow down the third will go right between them.The bigger the boat the less inclined people are to slow down.
None of these people are going any near 45 and are dangerous enough.Now people on this forum want to make sure you can go 60 down Meredith bay on SAT afternoon or up Between Bear and Meredith Neck.Sixty would be legal now as long as you are 150' from another boat.Is it safe?I know none of you guys would do this but some one will,they do now.You are all talking a lot about Kayaks,what about small fishing boats,kids in whalers there are lots of small boats on the lake.
I don't want to see a speed limit on the Lake but more and more people keep coming,just like you have to slow down in a town on the road you are going to have to slow down on the lake.If people only went fast out in the Broads with no one around this would not be an issue.Like some one once said."Common sense aren't too common"

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few feet away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are no speed limits there.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are have speed limits there.

As a pilot and future astronaut I can tell you there is a speed limit everywhere above the USA. The only exceptions are military and spaceflight.

However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations.

[fatlazyless]

Reading thru the LaDaSun article gets me thinking about Reps Gene Chandler and Mike Whalley. Chandler used to be the speaker of the house, and Whalley was probably surprised last election when his time as speaker never happened as the house went Democratic majority.

Anyway, Mike Whalley is from Alton, so after HB847 becomes law maybe he could be persuaded to sponsor a new bill that would designate Alton Bay as the designated 'no speed limits area' so's all the go-fasts can cruise over there for a Sunday morning get-together. That's one of the only areas that offers good visibility from the roads, plus the shape of the Bay could act like a megaphone..

Just imagine sitting at Shibley's Bayside for Sunday breakfast, enjoying a bowl of granola with grapefruit juice, and listening to the resounding echo of a triple 600 MerCruiser engines thunder past.....kaboomba...ba...booomba...booomba....boom ! ALTON BAY....way-to-go! Let's all go to Alton Bay for Sunday speed action easily watched from the roadside embankment.....tell Myrtle to pack the picnic basket....and zoom off to Alton Bay by car or by boat.

Seriously, after HB847 gets passed, Alton Bay just may be interested in this idea? It's a speedy type of a neighborhood!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As a pilot and future astronaut I can tell you there is a speed limit everywhere above the USA. The only exceptions are military and spaceflight.

However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations.

I'd be ok with either of those speed limits on the lake: speed of sound over the continental US (+/- 600 mph) or 200 knots in certain airspace near airports. That would be fine for the lake. 200 knots, within sight of Bear Island, and the speed of sound for the rest of the lake.

Any speed limit more restrictive than that is just not necessary.....

[JayDV]

This may be a tad “over the top” but why not encourage technology and the powers that be gather the full extent of information necessary to make a decision on speed limits?

Now I see a major change here, but maybe it is time to change the way we approach situations where peoples’ Rights and citizens’ Wants clash so severely that nary a thing gets accomplished to anyone’s liking. This may be a large expense, but sometimes it is worth the investment instead of continuing to bandaid the way we think and act. There may even be quite a few jobs created from management to technician.

The concept is that the lake is a beautiful public playground for all ages. There will be a few playground monitors (Marine Patrol craft) wandering the play area with radio contact to Principal’s office. The Principal will notify a monitor, with all water craft information, when controlling action is required and the monitor will police the situation.

Picture this:

1). EVERY craft on the lake is required to have some sort of RFID (radio freq ID chip) with GPS capabilities. These will be issued via registration through the NH Dept of Safety. – Not impossible. Currently all new automobiles have the technology added to the computer, just not all are purchased “active”. Technology is also used on pet collars.

2). Various locations on mainland and islands to host a receiver station and a line of sight transmitter to a collection station. Collection station operator (manned by the Marine Patrol?) will oversee lake usage of crafts through some sort of Air Traffic Controller program and display (Tom Cruise in Minority Report comes to mind).

3). Lake areas (150 ft off shore) will be designated, on maps (Bizer will be busy) and through transmitters on top of buoys, as areas for “gentle activities” and “rough sports activities”. The open waters of the Broads comes to mind as a sandlot football/rugby field, maybe even the stretch from Rattlesnake Island towards Govenor’s Island (backing off for traffic leaving Gilford Town Dock). The RFID on each craft will read the transmitter from the buoy to further notify the navigator.

Now the information collected will be in entirety not just random gatherings in random locations at random times. This will tell everyone just how many craft there are and what speeds they travel, and where the speeds increase and decrease based on operators thought process. And, for those needing to know, it will tell everyone how many kayaks and canoes, large and small are using what kinds of play areas and when they are in use. It will not be able to identify clothing or lack thereof.

With all this information collected, now the politicians can agree to mandate what a trained expert may suggest IF a law appears to be required.

This is a raw idea and could use tweaking. I see this type of thinking may already be in the near future for cars as California is trying some sort of computer self driving idea with a few cars on a section of highway. Connecticut has wired I-95 and I-91 with fiber optics for their cameras and is capable of, but not doing, monitoring individual car speeds, and like toll booths, mail tickets home to registered offender with picture attached.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph. Actually, from the press and comments posted by WInnfabbs I would have expected to see 30 or 40% of the boats to be traveling faster than 45mph. The study didn't show that because there is not a speed problem.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.

You might as well say the study is invalid because MP didn't stop and gather each boat operators name and address. Look up statistical sampling, read and understand.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.

Wrong again...........

From the Citizen:

Gallagher said there were two areas chosen for temporary regulation of speed, including the southwest side of Rattlesnake Island, ranging to the main shore, as well as the area between Bear Island and Meredith Neck. He said the reason was because they were long areas with a fair amount of traffic.

There also were several other areas surveyed, including Paugus Bay because it is a large area with boats mainly traveling past each other in opposite directions. Others were in Gilford between Governor's Island and Timber Island; Center Harbor; Moultonborough near the east side of Moultonborough Neck; between Cow and Little Bear islands; Tuftonboro Neck; and the end of Alton Bay, the part nearest to the main lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

And again wrong. The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

[Evenstar]

[quote=ITD;61913]I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph./quote]

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.



This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

The study proves that you could not have possibly had as many "close calls" with speeding boats as you allude. Especially when you consider how few times you have been on the lake. What more could you possibly need to know about the population of the study that would be relevant? In any study, capturing 2% is a pretty good sample, if we accept the premise that hours of daylight is important, which it isn't.........

As far as the accuracy of the study, even though I don't think it is true, let's suppose they missed 50% of the boats that were above 45, that would bump the total from 0.9% to 1.8%, still a very small number, so what?????

You keep bombarding us with inaccurate info. only 2 out of 9 areas were published, so you are wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Common sense, a speed limt isn't going to help you. The only thing that will make you feel safe is a power boat ban, and that isn't going to happen. The world doesn't revolve around you. You should have learned this by now.

Show me some data that supports a speed limit, you have none. Just a group of people using scare tactics. Tactics that have been exposed and pretty much admitted or shown as being untrue. When you see some actual data, you try to torpedo that, but you are foiled again....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"...So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area..."

Nobody knows how many boats were speeding according to this excerpt:

"The men logged more than 50 boats in an hour. The highest speed recorded was 34 mph, but the fastest watercraft - a Jet Ski with two people who cheered and whooped as they passed - could not yield a reading, because it was bouncing on the water too much, Marine Patrol Officer Stern said."

and...

Originally Posted by The Big Kahuna

"...What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't..."

This law restricts only behavior, so why the angst? There are worse fatal scenarios out there (like Long Lake's) which are making laws against horsepower.

and...

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the most important of these is Life!

NH Rep. Dennis Abbott has stated, "There’s a lot of people trying to enjoy life in New Hampshire, and they should be able to do that without worrying about their personal safety."

and...

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem..."

Meredith News excerpt:

"...But John Irwin of Irwin Marine Hillside in Alton, president of the New Hampshire Marine Trades Association, says that while he agrees that there are problems on New Hampshire lakes..."

and...

Originally Posted by ITD

I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right.

Cal has said the same thing—twice; but how could the study ever be right? This excerpt even promotes a skewed study:

"The Department of Safety warned boaters to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer, when a pilot program would allow Marine Patrol officers to enforce speed limits on two busy sections of the lake."

and...

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear.

I fear all those who do not have training in high speed boat control. Check out this excerpt by an experienced boat tester:

"A few years ago I had the misfortune to test the Baja Hammer on Windermere before the speed limit was enforced. That experience etched an indelible memory of a boat that was impossible to hold in a straight line and that bucked like a rodeo bull as soon as you reached the 60mph mark. Plagued by chine walk and spontaneous skips, she was one of the most evil handling boats I have ever driven."

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

My boat does not go 45. I can tell you that I have found very well camouflaged kayaks on occasion with a lot less time to react than I care for. When we purchased our Kayaks the number one requirement was that they were as visible as possible. My kids and wife would be in them and their safety depends on all boats being able to see them. They are yellow and Orange. We chose two bright colors in hopes that between the two they would be even more visible. The greatest safety device for kayakers and boaters alike is visibility and observation. When I see a kayak with a flag or brightly colored paddles or some other obvious attempt to be seen, I nod my head and give them much more than the 150 feet they require.

As far as your question...it could be turned around to ask if so few boats are speeding then why the need to ask the government to get involved in our lives for something that is only a problem for some. The fast boats are not asking to restrict where the slow boats can go so why do we need to restrict where they can go. If they can't maintain the 150 foot rule from shore and other vessels than we already have laws for that. I would much rather have the MP stopping captain bone head going 15mph at full wake and 75 feet from your kayak with 15 people on board. We see them all day on the island. We call them "Wakus Maximus". We have a law that they are violating 50 foot from my dock and 25 feet from my kids swimming, but the MP is behind the island trying to find the one fast boat in an hour. He is far from shore and making hardly any wake and paying keen attention.

I remember the book, what color is your parachute. In this case, what color is your kayak?

[Cal]

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close. The only thing I would ever consider having been a close call was NOT from a speeding boat but your typical 18' to 20' rented bowrider with captain bonehead at the wheel. And most of these can barely to 45 so speeding is certainly not their problem

[GWC...]

Cal, you might find this comment to an online Union Leader article of interest:

Originally Posted by Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

The following voice message was left by the speed limit bill sponsor Mr. Pilliod, tell me there is no agenda here and this is a safety issue and not about banning a certain style of boat.

This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "
- Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

Cal, you might also find the comment from Arwen Mitton of Littleton very interesting, too.

[Lakegeezer]

So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats. Now, what about the bass boats, which can go just as fast, but are much lighter and generally come with courteous pilots. Maybe the rules should be rewritten that no boat over two tons can go over 45. The bass contests are won by getting from one favorite bass hole to another before the competition. The boats are expensive, and computer designed to be stable at high speeds. One could (and some do) argue that nobody needs to go that fast, but that is opinion, not a reason for a law.

Jet skis are another craft that will be impacted by trying to get the 'big guys'. Some of them go 60 with ease, and it is the pursuit of happiness to do so. This type of craft causes more anger than fear, and lowering their speeds will do nothing to reduce anger. There are more fools driving them, but they are very maneuverable. There have been deaths on jet-skis, but speeds over 45 don't seem to be the cause.

So since Mr. Pilliod says "It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels", then the law should not be so broad based against the freedom to persue happiness for those without the big boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call - 50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close.

Not that it's any of your business, but haven't been 20 for many, many years - so please stop trying to discredit me because of how old you think I am. Again, personal attacks have no place in a debate, and happen to be against the rules of this forum. (And, yes, making fun of someone is a personal attack.)

Some of you on this forum have referred to kayaks (and sea kayaks) as toys (or worse) - and you seem to think that a "real" boat has to have a high horse-power motor - and that only "real" boats should be allowed out on the main lake. Some of you feel that all kayakers are inexperinced boaters, and that we all get in major trouble whenever the lake gets a little rough. I've merely tried to present the other side here, as an experienced sea kayaker (there happens to be a LOT of us that paddle on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

e on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jrc]

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought.

You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats..."

FYI, your quoted "Ramsey Tidwell" did a cut-and-paste of Woodsy's winni.com post from three years ago!

Tidwell, (an alias of old) is presently spamming out-of-state boating websites to overthrow deliberations by New Hampshire's Legislature.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboar...ics/T61402.htm
http://www.ridepwc.com/blog/single/n...e_coming_soon/

http://www.bulletinboards.com/v1.cfm...eb357&expand=y

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake...TI7IFJRDF0H251

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243110

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243113

(One of the above links proposes a new law on Long Lake against 500-HP boats.)

Originally Posted by jrc

"...OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's..."

FYI, commercial production and retail sales began 100 years ago with Klepper (often seen on Winnipesaukee), and 75 years ago with Folbot. One of my Folbot brochures shows an early Folbot kayak cartopped on a 30's car having wooden spokes!

I keep two vintage Folbots on Winnipesaukee, but don't use them for a reason that could change by this summer.

Originally Posted by NHBUOY

...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see?

If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation.

I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SS-194

"...As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph..."

Here's hoping NH's Legislators are savvy-enough to grasp that.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation..."

I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats..."

All boats?

The far shore (Port Wedeln) is about ¾ to 1-mile away—perhaps a casual 15-minute trip by kayak. At 70-MPH, the same trip in a speeding, excessively-powered boat would take about 35-seconds!

So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

Originally Posted by SS-194

"...Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is..."

The following day—same kayaker—I considered offering a tow to the middle-aged woman because a strong headwind was making it very difficult for her and her little boy.

A view through binoculars showed that she was singing!

If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—and singing—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem.

[The Big Kahuna]

Originally Posted by If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—[B

and singing[/B]—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem.

After a statement like this it is impossible to take anything else you ever write serious. YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME! L

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

... I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

So in other words the skipper of the boat saw the kayak and avoided it.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

... {snip}
So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

Seems like you need to post a bigger picture. I mean he did see the kayak didn't he ...

[shooter]

yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by shooter

yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

[shooter]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

You have the right to enter the scene along with everyone else. Your choice of which freedoms to exercise will be moderated by your personal level and tolerance of fear. Suck it up. Chances are very good that you won't be hit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

I don't think last July was a long time ago.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't think last July was a long time ago.

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!

And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking.

[Bear Islander]

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

[chmeeee]

It is of course not appropriate to pretend it never happened. If anything, attention should be brought to any safety issues related to alcohol. No other factors can really be attributed to an accident once you determine that alcohol was a factor however. If somebody is boating under the influence, its fairly safe to assume that they are ignoring any and all appropriate laws.

Also, regarding the kayak accident, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the kayakers abandoned ship well before they were hit, at a distance such that if they had not jumped out they could have just paddled out of the way. Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.

The "Spin" is to post that it didn't happen. I will not defend the naked/drunk/unlit idiot in the kayak. However the accident DID happen.

I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.

But don't accuse me of spin when I point out the error. If one of you had pointed out the error would that have been spin?

Woodsy-

When did I blame anyone for this accident. You are going overboard (pun intended). I posted one sentence to remind people that it did happen. After that I was responding to criticism.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

BI...

The accident did occur.... a powerboat struck an unlit, unmanned kayak! HOWEVER, it is not the fault of the powerboat operator. Under NH Law, USCG rules and COLREGS, the Kayak was a hazard to navigation simply by the virtue of not properly displaying a light. IF you want to go a step further, the paddler was intoxicated! I dont particulalry care that he was nude... although I do think it a bit odd and is probably related to his AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)!

Had the kayaker been sober, he probably would have been displaying the proper lighting, and the accident probably would not have happened, as the operator of the powerboat was SOBER!

Every accident scenario you post seems to have one common thread... Alcohol Intoxication!! I agree with Chmeee... anytime you have an accident and it is determined that alcohol is involved, all bets are off!

Woodsy

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

OK - maybe we can count this one as a kayak accident, but its hard to use it as a reason to impose speed limits, boat size or HP limits - as those issues don't seem to be a factor in this case. This falls into the category of freedom to take risks (boating while dark, no lights, drunk and nude). The kayakers got caught on this one. Have we seen the offical accident report? Perhaps the kayakers abandoned ship as to not get caught nude, and therefore it was not an accident involving people, but just a case of a boat hitting lake debris at night.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Evenstar...

You do lots of everyday activites "At Your Own Peril"! Driving a car, crossing a street, riding a bicycle are all everyday activities that put YOU at risk of serious injury or death! A far greater risk than you have paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee on the BUSIEST of summer days! In all of those activities above, a 2000lb+ vehicle is passing within 10' of you at speed. Everyday people get injured or killed in NH as a result of those everyday activities! No kayaker has ever been struck and seriously injured or killed on Lake Winnipesaukee... EVER!

Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports!

You need to come up with a better argument...

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...
Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports! You need to come up with a better argument... Woodsy

Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.

The relative safety of the type of watercraft seems a bit off the topic of the risk to others by boats exceeding 45 MPH. Specifically, your point has been the risk to kayakers by such high speed boats. In Boating Statistics 2006, on page 27, is a chart entitled TYPES OF ACCIDENTS BY TYPE OF VESSEL. There are 3 types of accident that seem pertinent to the discussion, Collisions with other vessels, Struck by boat, and Struck by motor. For 2006 only 2 kayaks and 2 canoes had been involved in collision accidents. This is out of a total of 6753 accidents reported in the U.S. We don't know anything further about the actual speed of the collisions that occurred.

I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?

[parrothead]

APS Said "Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit. "

How frequently does this happen APS that there are paddlers out at night?? I am going to leave the clothing optional part out because that is just and amusing aside. Why is it ok for a small boat to be out at night without lights?
Why are they not subject to same rules as the rest of us? Where in all of this discussion has anyone said outright that operating any motorized vehicle is ok while intoxicated. Apparently I am one of these Live-Free-or-Die" crowd and I don't believe that. I do think that as a responsible person if I decided to paddle at night I would make myself as conspicuous as possible. Reflective tape on my PFD, a 360 degree light, a flash light so if these other things didn't work I could flash it a passing boat. Maybe even an air horn to blast at the boat to let my presence known. I would not decide that it was ok to abandon my vessel and leave it adrift in the path of an oncoming vessel. Where are you coming from with this?

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?

let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?

i'm not afraid of speeding boats because a) there aren't a lot of them and b) i've never had an issue with a speeding boat and i've got over 1,000 boating hours on this lake. If you have a fear of being hit by lightning or being run over by a speeding boat, stay inside when it rains and don't venture out on the lake when you see that boat going by your house at 130 mph (and please call me, i've yet to see that).

i don't think many boaters are afraid of the lake. i wonder what a survery would produce if you asked the question to boaters on lake winnipesaukee: are you afraid of boating on the lake? i think you'd find an over-whelming majority say they feel safe on the lake (in my opinion).

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by B R

let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?

I would like to propose that a speed limit for lightning be enacted. I think a safe speed would be 45 miles per hour. This would serve multiple benefits:

First of all, most members of the population are quite frightened by lightning and the high speed that it moves at (up to 93,000 miles per second). It can be especially scary if the lightning strikes within 150 feet of a person.

Second, it would reduce noise pollution. The thunder produced by lightning is mainly due to high speed of the electricity traveling through the air. Reduced to 45 miles per hour it would be a quiet buzzing sound.

Third, it could benefit the loon population. They are quite sensitive to sound and motion, so they could get out of the area before being struck as the lightning approached at a reasonable and prudent speed.

Fourth, children's camps could operate on the water with less fear. Think about it!

[fatlazyless]

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.

I didn't start this argument. Woodsy made false accusations about the safety of kayaks, that I refuted with some actual facts.

If you're going to lump all paddle boats together, you also need to lump all power boats together. Then do the math, and you'll see that I'm still correct.

I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

I'm not a worrier. But I am a realist. And close calls from high-speed boats have put me in danger.

Boats on Winni that were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violate my 150 foot zone by a considate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me. And this has occurred more than once.

If lightening was striking that close, I wouldn't just sit there, waiting for the next strike . . . regardless of the statistics!

Note: I do know what 45mph looks like on the water. And I'm really good at extimating distance. If a boat is only 3 to 4 kayak lengths away from me, it is way closer than 150 feet.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...Have we seen the offical accident report...?"

Because of the $2000 threshold for a NHMP report—and no injury—why would this require a report to the NHMP? Failing that—and that the CG has no jurisdiction on Winnipesaukee—will it even appear in Coast Guard statistics?

''The Coast Guard estimates that only about 10 percent of the boating accidents that occur are actually reported,'' Mr. Potter said. He said many accidents are not reported when boaters are not insured."

Originally Posted by shooter

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.

Interstate analogies again....

How are the salmon fishermen, fishermen at anchor, kayaks, tubers, floating debris, anchored swimmers, anchored picnickers, and the occasional errant swim float to be accounted for in any Interstate example?

Originally Posted by shooter

"...yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be..."

I previously noted here that a week before July 4th weekend, I saw a canoe, with a kayak in tow—transporting a solitary toddler—in open water.

Not exactly a jaywalker strolling out between parked SUVs, was she?

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking..."

It's not right to "project" a view of a non-participant into this incident. We don't know that to be FACT.

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

...and...

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!! So please don't go there!

...and...

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that..."

What is being taken for FACT...has only appeared at this forum.

The news article states, "...the kayak had no lights...".

A kayak does not need "lights". A single 360° hand-held light is sufficient. Did the reporter expect to find the "missing lights" in an overturned and abandoned kayak with several feet of its bow missing?

SIKSUKR's account (DUI, naked, no lights) was 3rd-hand; plus, we don't have any corroborating evidence from the press. The "NH Bass Foundation Nation" account (if there was one) could be parroting what appears anywhere on the Internet!

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement...they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark...."

Unless there is some public document floating around, we don't "clearly know" any of that. Do we "clearly know" of a single citation being issued?

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights..."

At some point after this after-dark encounter, there were one or two swimmers in the water. A swimmer anywhere on the lake after dark—and needing rescue—cannot be expected to have lights.

If "kayaks can't be seen", I will agree with Mee&Mac and Evenstar that a strobe should be allowed for after-dark kayaking.

(Even one that does not meet the on-ON criterion. And yes, we should protect the fool at our own "expense").

(Some PFDs have strobe lights.)

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...clearly they were naked..."

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...the Nude Kayaker had bailed out

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...he was nude..."

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...drunk and nude...not get caught nude..."

Originally Posted by EricP

"...in Fish Cove kayaking naked..."

Originally Posted by EricP

"...drinking and nude...?"

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Maybe nekkid kayaking should be allowed..."

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it..."

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...he didn't want to be seen naked...?"

Originally Posted by superdawgfan

"...naked like the other bonehead kayaker...?"

Originally Posted by MAINLANDER

"...and drunk naked kyackers..."

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak..."

Originally Posted by ITD

"...these naked midnight [kayakers]..."

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

[SIKSUKR]

In the spirit of APS type posts,I offer this one from the WMUR website.


Searchers Look For Missing Kayaker

POSTED: 7:56 am EDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:17 am EDT May 2, 2008


ORFORD, N.H. -- Authorities are searching for a Vermont man after his empty kayak was found floating in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus said 58-year-old Robert Swantak of Bradford, Vt., went out for an afternoon of kayaking and fiddlehead fern picking Thursday.

He started in the Waits River in Bradford, which joins the Connecticut River that separates Vermont and New Hampshire.

Swantak's family called police when he failed to return home.

His overturned kayak was found a few miles down river in Orford, N.H., but there was no sign of Swantak.

Authorities from both states searched until after midnight and will begin searching again Friday morning.

Bogardus said officials remain optimistic that Swantak made it to shore, but he notes that the river is at high flood level with very swift currents and cold water temperatures.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

The clothes-optional visitors were operating a craft in an unsafe manner. They created the problem, not the boater. Had they been operating within the law, this incident would not have happened. Period.

Oh and regarding the alcohol-induced excess, there is already a BUI law. Enforce it.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

Boy, who pulled out their Thesaurus the other day?? Quite impressed...

This "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd does not condone naked kayaking while drunk and stupid in the dark without any navigation lights, and we do not condone alcohol related stupidity behind the wheel of a boat. We push for better education, enforcement of current laws and promoting a safe lake. We do not promote a fear based campaign full of BS and empty of facts like our opposition.

There is no rampant issue with boats traveling 3 times the proposed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, I am not sure what Winnipesaukee you live on. There is a handful at most that are capable of speeds over 100mph, nonetheless 135mph.

[CaptDan]

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Fatlazyless
As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if because of the need for boats and crews to set up radar posts that they decide the Bear Island Post Office stake out spot would be one of the areas boats and crews are diverted away from?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by WAM 290

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

More single-minded crap there than you can shake a stick at.

I might add, don't forget the big, big wakes.

[SIKSUKR]

I wouldn't call that an update.That's one person's opinion in a letter to the editor.Does the Monitor publish opposing views?

[Seeker]

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by ITD

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. It would be wonderful if you could just live in a laboratory and assume that there were exactly that many boats on the lake exceeding 50mph in a given time period but even the staunchest scholar would concede that it would merely be speculative based on hundreds of variables. I pray to god that the Senators are reading every shred of debate on this forum. I firmly believe that they would see through the ridiculous claims made by proponents.

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. . . .

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

[B] BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

Show me what is wrong with my analysis...

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered.

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

Yes, I believe that the speed study was flawed in how it was done, so I don’t believe that the data produced is at all accurate. But that is a separate issue, from the methodology of doing statistical analysis. Many of the speed limit opponents use the data from the speed study like it is gospel – so they obviously believe that it is viable.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

You can’t argue that the study was done correctly and then say that my statistical analysis is incorrect merely because it used the data from that study.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.

I did not “lash out.” Please explain how asking for you colleague’s qualifications is a personal attack on you or on anyone.

But having a PHD in mathematics does not make you colleague more qualified than my professors who happen to be very qualified in their knowledge of statistical analysis.

If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

I don’t lie. My GPA was published in both the Concord Monitor and in the Manchester Union leader when my speech at my graduation from NHTI was covered last May. Goggle Arwen RWU and you’ll see that I really and a student there and really am a member of the sailing team.

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed. The purpose of the speed study was to the record speeds of boats on a lake over 11 weeks of summer boating. If the speed study was done correctly, the study areas should have been selected to accurately represent boat traffic on the lake (that is the goal of study areas), and the time periods in which they took the readings should have been selected to accurately represent the average activity that is going on during the day.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

If you accept that the study is valid – you have to accept that the data collected represents the average conditions on the lake on the average day. If this is not true, then the data and the study are invalid. You can’t have it both ways, not matter how much you try to spin this.

There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.
You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.
So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.
My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.

For the record, my friend has a Ph.D in Mathematics. If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

You are taking a RECREATIONAL activity and trying to extrapolate data based on individual results. I will show you how and why you can not apply the same methodology used in traffic studies to a RECREATIONAL activity. In the interest of time I will try to hold it to just a few examples. Let me first start by simplifying your claim. You claim that over roughly a 10 week period if one boat was traveling 50+MPH then there were other boats at the same time traveling over 50MPH. You also state that we need to multiply that over a set of weeks, lets say 10 weeks. Therefore according to you there were roughly 50 boats elsewhere on the lake doing 50+MPH. That is a loose interpretation of your argument. Your numbers ended up claiming over 2,000 boats in roughly a 10 week period were exceeding 50MPH. Here are just a few reasons why you can not treat this like a typical traffic study.

#1 Unlike a highway people do not boat in the same pattern every day.
This is not I-93 during rush hour where you can make the assumption that the same people are traveling the same route every day. In highway analysis one can reasonably assume within a small margin that the traffic pattern would be similar on any given day within a set number of days, I.E. Monday through Friday. Therefore you could measure speeds in a set test area and then you could extrapolate that data to infer that the same numbers (Speed, Car Counts etc.) would apply to another zone taking into account variables such as road topography and such.

#2 Boating is a leisure activity
Applying finite math to a leisure activity to determine how many boats are in a set area traveling at a set speed is impossible. Boat A never left the dock because they decided to go swimming. Boat B left the dock but decided to slow cruise because they wanted to look at the McMansions. Boat C is setting up to waterski. Boat D is actually prepping for a high speed run across the broads but Boats E,F,G,H,I are waiting in line for a dock space. That is just day one. Day two, it is windy out and Boat A is cruising at 25MPH because Aunt Ann has a bad back and hates the waves. Boat B thinks it is too windy to boat today. Boat C is not about to waterski in this mess. Boat D is not at the lake because he is working. etc. etc. Day 3 is a rainy Monday and the only boats on the water are the Mount, Marine Patrol, the lone fisherman and a few hearty Islanders trying to get the kids off of the island.

Those are two examples for you to chew on as to why it is impossible to apply traffic study methodology to a LEISURE activity. You are also leaving out the human nature aspect of the equation. Commuting by car is an entirely different subject matter with an entirely different set of variables that are much more predictable. You are trying to apply logic to leisure and the best scientists in the world can't come up with a formula for that. Over a 10 week period people will boat thousands of different ways. To try and make a math equation that states One Boat traveling 50MPH in Meredith equates to 4 boats traveling 50MPH one in Alton one in Wolfeboro one in Center Harbor and one in the broads is ludicrous and down right laughable.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

[bilproject]

This discussion of statistical value of this study is academic for the reasons Hazelnut pointed out. Most people who say the study was not valid point out the fact that the marine patrol used marked boats and announced the areas to gather data. I would suggest that a large majority of the boaters were unaware of the study and could not tell you what a marine patrol boat looked like from a half mile away. Those of us that are on the lake a lot were very aware of both, but we are the minority of boaters. The 2 areas where a limit was announced showed no difference in stats from the areas that were sampled unannounced. This could support the idea that most boaters were unaware and going about their business as usual. The study is what was found at those places, at that time, for those boats. That is not and can not be disputed (unless we get into a discussion of the effectiveness of radar operated from a moving and rocking boat. If we go there then I'm afraid those for a speed limit would have to make a good case for not being able to enforce this law) This is the only data we have. It can be twisted and spun anyway you want when you talk about the whole lake on any given day at any given time.
I for one think that the State is writing a bad law. I believe that for 2 reasons. First, having the law at all is being based on emotion and individual observation not fact, scientific or other. Second, recording speed on water with accuracy from a small floating platform is at best effective only a small part of the time. There are simply too many variables that are effecting the readings. I would like to see the Senate back off and do a meaningful study of both speed and enforcement issues. Then if a law is needed pass one.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

That's not the most ridiculous use of forecasting I've seen, hey, the Guvmint pretty much has that tied up. Obviously, parts of the lake are far less traveled than others. Perhaps you should stake out some territory not covered by the MP in the study, and get a hint as to what's wrong with your attempts to extrapolate the data.