Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

codeman671 · 02-15-2008, 05:24 PM

Honestly, at both settings on the exhaust (thru-hull and diverted down) as long as the decibel level meets state law why ban it??? Hmm, I can go from legal to even quieter and back again with a switch. Maybe mandate that if equipped it needs to be on the quieter setting at night?

As far as the picture posted by APS, from the distance that the picture was taken it is hard to see the driver anyhow. It has nothing to do with the nose of the boat...That is misleading. Go figure?

I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake.

To heck with the 130mph Cat, below is a speedo pic from my boat, 194mph. Bet the Cat can't do that! (actually it was a bad ground that whacked out the speedo but the picture was priceless)

ApS · 02-16-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...That is misleading...I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake.

For Winni, always drive GFBLs so you can drive anywhere—in any weather—in comfort.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 02-16-2008, 04:53 PM

OK, let me try this again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearIslander

I have heard the switchable exhaust story before. There might be a few responsible people that would use it in a crowded environment. However I'm sure the reason it is illegal is because it would mostly be used to quiet down when the Marine Patrol was around.... I was born at night, but I wasn't born LAST night.

BI, where did I say anything about lifting the existing decibel limits? I didn’t!! So, as codeman671 put it, I could either be legally loud or courteous and quiet. What a novel idea!!! God forbid I should ever try to be courteous because we all know performance boaters are not courteous!! Yeah, right; what a bunch of BS!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearIslander

I don't know anything about your boat, but if you can't operate at legal speeds AND be able to see where you are going, then it should not be on a crowded lake.

Nice, twist my words. BI, I CAN operate my boat at legal speeds because for now, at least, “legal” is “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions” which means I’m allowed to throttle up, at night, to get my boat up on plane so I can SEE where I’m going without having the bow of my boat blocking my forward visibility. I can also see in front of my boat if I’m moving at no-wake speed. 25mph is where the problem arises; it's simply too slow to get my, and I'm guessing alot of other boats, up on plane. If the 25mph night-time speed limit is imposed, the only way I would be able to keep the bow down so I could see in front of my boat, would be to break the speed limit to get up on plane and stay there (GASP!) or motor at no-wake speed and, to borrow from Dave_R, no-wake speed is not the most efficient speed possible on a boat. My wife and I work hard to afford our boat; we're not rich. Since we're not rich, I’m not going to waste money and fuel! You pro-limit people think all the GFBL people are “rich” but I, for one, am NOT! Oh, I almost forgot, there is one other option, stay home and not go out at all. But this isn’t about keeping a certain type of boat off the lake, is it?!?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_R

Oddly, I have to agree with BI about boats that ride dangerously bow high (meaning the view forward is blocked) at speeds above 25 MPH. Sounds like a design issue that should be addressed. Sustained operation in that mode is reckless, IMO, and ought to earn the operator a ticket. If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense.

Dave_R, as far as I know, it’s not a “design issue” that needs to be addressed but then again, I’m not a designer. From my own personal experience and what little bit I’ve read about boat design, any boat that has a “planing” type of hull will encounter a bow high condition until it reaches planing speed. Obviously, the lighter and/or shorter the boat, the lower the planing speed will be. You’ve “never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner” because we (the performance boat owner/driver) KNOW it’s unsafe and our intent is to get up on plane as soon as we are clear of traffic (this is where the 150’ rule comes into play!) so that we CAN see in front of us! Apparently, the intent IS to keep a certain type of boat off the lake, because the longer and heavier a boat is, the higher the minimum planing speed of said boat. So if the 25mph limit is imposed, a lot of performance boat owners won’t be able to safely use their boat at night.

Dave_R, in one paragraph you say “If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense” and in the next paragraph “It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.”, referring to bow high operation. We can’t have it both ways. Most, maybe not all, performance boats can’t “reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see” (to meet the proposed 25mph night-time limit) and still operate efficiently. I don’t want to waste the fuel (and money) by being on the lake at night and only go “no-wake” speed and besides, we’ve already heard from the people claiming we pollute more than any other type of boat (including the two-cycle outboards?) so it’s really not advisable for that reason also.

This is why the current standard, “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”, is STILL the best alternative. It’s not the performance boaters making the lake unsafe, it’s the boneheads that either don’t know or ignore the existing laws that are unsafe. Fund the MP so they can enforce the existing laws and ticket THEM to death until they either get it straight or stop coming here altogether but don’t legislate us to death for their ignorance and/or arrogance.

OK, rip me apart; I know someone out there wants to do it.

Lakegeezer · 02-16-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

25mph is where the problem arises; it's simply too slow to get my, and I'm guessing alot of other boats, up on plane.

This kind of boat might encourage agressive driving. If a captain has to fall below 25 to avoid traffic, it probably takes a gallon or so of extra gas to regain a plane. In congested times, what is a captain to do?

Wolfeboro_Baja · 02-16-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

This kind of boat might encourage agressive driving. If a captain has to fall below 25 to avoid traffic, it probably takes a gallon or so of extra gas to regain a plane. In congested times, what is a captain to do?

That depends on the captain. IMO, this type of boat requires cautious driving. In congested times, common sense dictates slowing down to headway speed. In my opinion, congested implies an inability to maintain 150ft from all other boats/craft in the vicinity which means we should ALL be moving at no-wake speed in that vicinity. I slow down whenever I'm near (meaning within 200ft of) other boats to wait and see because I never know what they're going to do!

In the situation you suggested, I'm not concerned with the amount of fuel needed to get back on plane once I'm clear of congested traffic, but I don't like the implication that, if the 25mph limit is imposed, if I want to travel back from Weirs Beach to Wolfeboro at night, I'll have to do it at headway speed (and waste MORE fuel than in the scenario you suggested) even if there were no other craft within 500ft of my boat the entire way!!

Think of the no-wake zone between Eagle and Governor's Islands. No way is that 450 feet across but most boaters wouldn't slow down to no-wake speed if they were going through there at the same time another boat was. MP (or whoever makes these decisions) had to mark it as a no-wake zone because people did not use common sense and slow down when they were going through. And even with that no-wake zone marked, people STILL don't slow down when going through there!! I'm constantly cursing to myself about the boneheads that ignore the 150ft rule in this particular area (Eagle/Governor Isl.).

Wolfeboro_Baja · 02-16-2008, 07:35 PM

Dave, I wasn't referring to you when I said "ok, rip me apart", I just knew somebody will eventually. I think your posts on this issue have been very sane. To be honest, when I was writing that post, I couldn't remember where you stood on the issue but I felt I had to address the comments you made.

To answer your other question, no, my wife hates purple!! We have bright yellow, lime green and dark blue graphics; actually, they look very nice together!

Regarding displacement hulls, I don't know how efficient or inefficient they are compared to planing hulls But I did find this at About.com:Powerboating:

Quote:

Some advantages of a displacement hull are 1. a relatively small engine can easily drive it; thus, its ability to travel long distances is outstanding, and 2. because it's traveling through the water, not on top of it, it has a very smooth, seaworthy ride. However, an obvious disadvantage is that this boat hull is slower than molasses in January!

Regarding planing hulls, the same website had this to say (but they made no comment as to fuel efficiency):

Quote:

When a planing hull is either not moving or going very slowly, it is, in effect, a displacement hull. As power and speed increase, however, a planing hull lifts itself up on top of its own bow wave. This causes the boat to displace much less water. As a result, there is much less wetted surface on the hull bottom, meaning much less friction as well. The speed of the boat will now increase at a great rate. With this hull, the more horsepower added, the faster the boat will go.

Now, to answer your questions about if the speed limit passes:

Quote:

If you operate your boat at idle, in gear, the bow will be down enough to see properly and you'll be well below the proposed speed limit and operating safely, efficiently and legally.

Not going to happen because of the high cost of fuel and I can't afford to waste it.

Quote:

If you operate at 24 MPH with the bow blocking your forward vision, you'll be legally staying below the speed limit, but not very safe, and you'll be wasting a bunch of fuel.

Also not going to happen because of the safety issue and the cost of fuel that I cannot afford to waste.

Quote:

If you operate at 26 MPH with the bow down, and light conditions allow you to do this safely, you'll be doing the smartest thing, but breaking the law.

If my memory serves me correctly, my boat must be moving approx. 32mph to stay on plane and that's with my trim tabs ALL THE WAY DOWN. I'm not sure I'd even do this because I can't afford the speeding ticket on my license. But let me ask you this; how many people do you think actually ALWAYS travel at the posted speed limits on land (30, 35, 45, 65, etc.)? Most of the time, I'm travelling at 5mph above the posted limit and I've done it either in front of or behind the police travelling in the same direction with me or passing by in the opposite direction with no hand gesture to slow down.

Quote:

If you have a boat that can't plane below 25 MPH, you still can operate at night safely and legally, it's just not much fun.

Correct and the pro-limit people will have won and taken away my freedom of enjoying my leisure time the way I want to.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 02-27-2008, 09:45 AM

This quote from the Radar Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have been totally honest here. Yet whenever I mention the fact that I have had high speed boats violate my 150 foot zone - because they were apparently going too fast to see me in time - {snip} I have never twisted anything, yet I have been repeatedly accused of doing do. The truth is that some operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to stay out of the 150 foot zone. I've seen this happen way too much.

Evenstar, you have consistently claimed that your 150' space is violated by boaters who CAN NOT SEE you due to their excessive speed. I have no doubt that you honestly feel that way. One fallacy is that many of these boaters may actually see you and just not care. Another is that it's primarily boaters going over 45 mph that can not see you soon enough to avoid your 150' zone.

Boaters have violated my 150' space going much slower than 45 mph and some are Go Fast boats that aren't going over 45mph. My 24' cruiser is not low in the water and it's easy to see. I conclude that these violators don't know or care about the 150' rule. I'm up high enough so I can often see that they see me. This is an education and enforcement issue, not a speed problem.

Why do you not address the main theme of your fear - Boaters INABILITY TO SEE WELL. Where is it required that boaters have good vision? Why are you seemingly unconcerned about that?

As an extreme example of my point: What prevents a legally BLIND person from taking the helm of ANY recreational boat on Winnie? At 30 or 50 mph it really won't make much difference if they can't see well in the first place. Even if they see well enough to have a driver's license it may not be good enough in my opinion.

I won't use this un-retouched picture to bolster my point but I can tell you that the Captain of this cat did not see the boy or his OCEAN KAYAK less than 20' away!! Plus now I know what an Ocean Kayak looks like.

Evenstar · 02-27-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

This quote from the Radar Thread
Evenstar, you have consistently claimed that your 150' space is violated by boaters who CAN NOT SEE you due to their excessive speed. I have no doubt that you honestly feel that way. One fallacy is that many of these boaters may actually see you and just not care. Another is that it's primarily boaters going over 45 mph that can not see you soon enough to avoid your 150' zone.

The speed limit will not prevent all unsafe behavior on the lake - and I've never sugested that it would.

But I do know that some power boat operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of the 150 foot zone. I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time - it's the faster boats that are the problem in this situation - and a speed limit will in my opinion make this less likely to result in a serious accident.

People do intentionally violate the 150 foot rule all the time, but the violation of one law does not negate the need for a different law. Perhaps we do need a vision test as well. There's a great deal that can be done to make boating safer - in my opinion the speed limit is one of the needed steps in making the lake(s) safer for everyone.

Mark · 03-06-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time -

Ms. Evenstar's justification for her zealous desire for a speed limit is based on surprised reactions by those who see her. I can speak only for myself but I know some others think like I do and I look surprised when I see some females. Be they very cute or the extreme opposite and sometimes in-between I would look surprised when I see them. Did we not have a thread about nude kayakers recently? If I got close enough to see the persons features I would look surprised even if I saw the kayak more than 150 feet away. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your observation which you claim is your basis for speed limits.

I would not expect an ocean kayak like this to be in the broads during a windy busy weekend. There should be a law about that.

Here it looks like the boat is going to hit the kid. The captain did not see the kayak. The kid did not appear to notice the boat probably because a slow sailboat doesn't make noise like a GFBL boat. Fortunately the boat in this picture is not going fast due to the laws of physics not government.

Why would you want to paddle one of these Ocean Kayaks across the broads in heavy weather? It's your choice but does not seem wise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Perhaps we do need a vision test as well. There's a great deal that can be done to make boating safer - in my opinion the speed limit is one of the needed steps in making the lake(s) safer for everyone.

Perhaps we need a vision test? perhaps? You are concerned about being seen that you demand speed limits but are not so concerned about vision qualifications?

Is it just me or does this not make sense?

I was for speed limits originally but reviewing all the information presented in these threads I have switched sides. There is no need for speed limits on the lake. Enforce the ones we have and educate the boaters.

Evenstar · 03-06-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Ms. Evenstar's justification for her zealous desire for a speed limit is based on surprised reactions by those who see her. I can speak only for myself but I know some others think like I do and I look surprised when I see some females. Be they very cute or the extreme opposite and sometimes in-between I would look surprised when I see them. Did we not have a thread about nude kayakers recently? If I got close enough to see the persons features I would look surprised even if I saw the kayak more than 150 feet away. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your observation which you claim is your basis for speed limits.

I can tell ogling surprise from the surprise of suddenly realizing that they are about to run me over (and they have been close enough for me to see their eyes). I've offered to take anyone of you out kayaking on the lake anytime (well once I'm off crutches and finished with this semester) - then perhaps others here would understand why I'm so zealous for a speed limit (for all NH lakes).

Quote:

Here it looks like the boat is going to hit the kid. The captain did not see the kayak. The kid did not appear to notice the boat probably because a slow sailboat doesn't make noise like a GFBL boat. Fortunately the boat in this picture is not going fast due to the laws of physics not government.

I'm also a collegiate sailor (my team is currently rated 8th in North America). It is the sailor's responsibility to know what is on the other side of the sails at all times. We wouldn't win many races if we didn't keep an eye on the other boats at all times. So the "captain" of that boat is an idiot, if he didn't see the kid.

Quote:

Why would you want to paddle one of these Ocean Kayaks across the broads in heavy weather? It's your choice but does not seem wise.

That is not a sea kayak. Just because the manufacture slapped the words "Ocean Kayak" on it does not make it one. Other than speeding boats that don't see me, there is nothing dangerous about an experience sea kayaker, with the proper equipment, crossing the broads on a windy (within reason of course) day. 2 and 3 foot waves are not a big problem for an experienced sea kayaker, with the right equipment.

Quote:

Perhaps we need a vision test? perhaps? You are concerned about being seen that you demand speed limits but are not so concerned about vision qualifications?

My point was that this is a discussion about the need for a speed limit. A vision test is a totally separate issue - which would require another law. And I don't know enough about the ability to implement and enforce a vision test requirement to intelligently discuss this. Again the need for other laws does not negate the need for a speed limit law.

Quote:

I was for speed limits originally but reviewing all the information presented in these threads I have switched sides. There is no need for speed limits on the lake. Enforce the ones we have and educate the boaters.

Come kayaking with me, and you may just switch sides again. The 4 MP officers that I have spoken with all want a lake speed limit law - they see high speed on our lakes as a problem. I agree with them.

Mashugana · 02-28-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

This quote from the Radar Thread

Where is it required that boaters have good vision? Why are you seemingly unconcerned about that?

As an extreme example of my point: What prevents a legally BLIND person from taking the helm of ANY recreational boat on Winnie? At 30 or 50 mph it really won't make much difference if they can't see well in the first place. Even if they see well enough to have a driver's license it may not be good enough in my opinion.

Interesting thoughts Skipper. How would a vision check be put in place? Eyesight testing does not seem practical.

You can put speed limits in place but you won't see vision tests as you have for driver's licenses. Speed limit proponents feel that their method is the most practical for that feel good feeling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the sea que

the Captain of this cat did not see the boy or his OCEAN KAYAK less than 20' away!! Plus now I know what an Ocean Kayak looks like.

Sails can block vision but at sailing speed the kayaker could blow the whistle or yell to the catamaran to alert people to his position. That sail catamaran is lucky to get 10 mph so speed limits would not make any difference here.

How could you deal with any vision requirement for boaters?

Wolfeboro_Baja · 03-04-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

How could you deal with any vision requirement for boaters?

Since there are special licenses and testing for motorcycles, commercial trucks (different classes of licenses for different classes of trucks), etc., perhaps it's time for a real license for operation of a boat. A vision test could be administered at the time the license is issued or renewed. All fees generated from a boat license could be directed solely to the Marine Patrol to increase their staff. Mandate that if the boat owner lives out-of-state but registers their boat in NH, they MUST have the NH boat license. Then, find a way to mandate those visiting from out-of-state have something similar showing that they KNOW the boating laws of NH and know how to operate a boat safely. That last one would probably be the toughest one to implement.

At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!

Mee-n-Mac · 03-04-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

{snip} At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!

I like the idea above. I've said it before, the problem with a 1 time test is that it's all too easy to "cram" for the test and then flush whatever knowledge that might be retained, away. Repeated testing is like the old school style of rote learning, repeat, repeat, repeat until the knowledge sinks in. I bet everyone my age got the multiplication tables stuffed down their throats until they gagged. I also bet most can do simple math in their heads today as a result. I bet that even Capt B would remember the more important rules if he was forced to repeat them ad naseum.

Whether that would make a difference can be debated.

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone ....

Skipper of the Sea Que · 03-04-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone ....

I know this one Mac

2 x 4 = an almost 2" by an almost 4" piece of lumber of various lengths often used in construction. a 2 by 4. Do I get 100 on this one teach'?

P.S. I used to get a lot of A's on my report card... I think they were mostly A for Absent though...

RE testing: I agree with you MnM and Wolfeboro_Baja. Plus you don't need to be a professor to know that regular testing (including vision checks) is not a bad idea.

winnidiver · 03-04-2008, 04:06 PM

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...Duck_8-64.jpgI have read all the speed limit debate.I have come to the conclusion that we don't need speed limits.
I think what we are all talking about is bad operators and bigger boats.There are way more boats than there use to be and they are bigger.It makes the lake seem more crowded than it is. A 30' boat going by at 25 seems a lot faster and more dangerous then a 16' boat at the same distance and speed. A lot of 25 to 30 foot boats in a smaller area makes people feel uncomfitable ,even if you are in a similar sized boat.
I put up a picture from another thread to show what I mean.That was Alton in the seventies. Back then there were not many boats over 20'.The bay seemed bigger then.
There is nothing we can do about more and bigger boats.But we can all set a example in our boating and encourage the state to do more enforcement.
I think that is the real problem,better enforcement of the laws costs money.Passing a new law to appease the people who are complaining cost nothing.

parrothead · 03-05-2008, 03:04 PM

I have spent that last two days at lunch reading through all of these posts. And after reading the posts from both sides of the issue, I don't think a speed limit is the answer to the problem. The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid. You become an obstruction on the highway even in the far right lane. A law is already on the books that says you should not operate your boat at an "excessive" speed. The middle of the Broads on a Tuesday and Meredith Bay on a Saturday call for different speed considerations. A Marine Patrol officer can stop you if you are operating your boat in a manner that can cause harm to you or your fellow boaters. The problem is that they can't be everywhere at all times, stopping every captain bone head. Excessive speed could be headway speed if you are coming into shore and there are other boats or swimmers in your area, or going 200 mph and weaving through other boat traffic. I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower. If you want to fight for something, then perhaps we should be trying to get more funding for boating safety. Just think what could have happened if both sides pooled all the money they used to lobby for this one bill, and used it to fund boater education, or providing a larger better trained Marine Patrol auxiliary. The likelihood of you doing something stupid decreases proportionately with your likelihood of getting caught. I pulled up and read though the USCG accident statistics that have been quoted many times during this discussion. While excessive speed is a cause of accidents/fatalities I find other statistics more frightening. The first is that "70% of reported fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction." Second that the leading cause of fatalities is alcohol related fatalities. And finally that the leading cause of accidents is operator inattentiveness. These are education/enforcement issues, and not based on anything else. So why isn't there a big push or outcry for education and enforcement? I just don't get it. I guess I am just naive, but I am most "afraid" of the boater that doesn't know what they are doing, or drunk. Because they can cause harm at any speed.

fatlazyless · 03-05-2008, 09:14 PM

Hey Parrothead...maybe not where you drive, but here in the NH lakes region, the speed limits on the roads are definately enforced. Every single day, I always see those blue lights at work, with another car stopped for something, and it's my guess it is usually for speeding.

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark..

parrothead · 03-05-2008, 11:10 PM

FLL, I guess we have different experiences, but I did think out my remarks and still stand by them. I still believe that a speed limit will just be one more regulation that capt. bone head will disregard. I still believe that the Marine Patrol does not have enough of a presence on the lake to adequately enforce it. I still believe that the biggest issue facing boater safety is that some boaters do not follow the existing laws. People drive while intoxicated, do not pay attention to where they are going, or get too close to other boats,swimmers, and land. I still stand the original premise of my post that boater education and more enforcement will make the lake safer, and that a speed limit will not make as big an impact.

fatlazyless · 03-05-2008, 11:30 PM

Well, in my opinion, it would just seem to me that sighting a hand held, radar, speed detector on a speeding 32' fiberglass hull from a distance of one quarter mile would be about as difficult as hitting a large barn with a snowball from thirty feet. The surface and angular design of a fiberglass boat should easily be detected as it moves across the lake. It's about as non-stealthy as a moving object can be, plus there's the noise, wake, bright colors, lights, and rooster tail of water.

Add to this the speeder's 'fear factor' for getting dunned through their next three year's car insurance bill, no matter which state you call home.

......sorry....but that's the way I see it.

michael c · 03-06-2008, 12:06 AM

1 5/8 x 3 5/8

chipj29 · 03-06-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark..

I strongly disagree with this statement. On I-93, at least from MA up to Concord, 75 is the norm. Yes, I am sure that some cars that travel over 70 get stopped. But those are the guys who are driving recklessly. Swerving in and out of lanes etc. Drive 75 in the left lane, and it is unlikely you will be stopped.

fatlazyless · 03-06-2008, 08:54 AM

My use of Route 93 is pretty much from exit 20 to exit 42 and that's of what I speak. On Friday evenings, the traffic is probably ten-twenty times heavier than on a tuesday at 10am.

With speed enforcement, It's sort of like duck hunting....a flock of 20 fly past....and maybe one gets hit.

There's a well known speed trap at the south end of Franconia Notch on Rt 93-south, where the road signs are all brown indicating a parkway. The road returns from one lane to two, it's supports a 70mph speed but the limit is still 45mph until you get to the next sign that says 65mph.

Basically, there's usually no crowds of traffic.....it's cruise control country.

It seems like with less traffic and a more empty route 93, the traffic settles on 65-70tops, and people drive a lot more polite.

The state police & highway patrol stake it out behind the snowbanks, or blending into the woods, and with not much traffic, a speeder is like a sitting duck.

Last time I was stopped for speeding was over three years ago, by a Thornton officer, who cut me a break, and lowered my offense by one level. It takes three years, here in NH, for a regular class 3 license, to get "safe' again with your ins co. Do not know how long it takes for a cdl-a to get "safe' again, and do not want to find out.

ApS · 03-06-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid..."

How many drivers in your example were at anchor?

A driver can't legally stop in Interstate traffic, but boaters can travel at less than 70-, 75-, or even 10-MPH. Boaters have been endangered when legally stopped!

BTW: The Marine Patrol's Speed Survey arrived at their "average" by including boats traveling under 10-MPH.

Bear Islander · 03-06-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

.... I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower....

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

KonaChick · 03-06-2008, 09:38 AM

I'm sure Capt. Bonehead's wife will have a huge impact on his boating purchases....it's worked for years on our highways and roads.

hazelnut · 03-06-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

How does that work now? So when more and more lakes enact limits they'll what? Drive to Michigan and launch? What about all the people who call the lake home and own these boats?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

When did you determine that the go fast drivers=Captain Boneheads? I thought we mostly agreed that Captain Boneheads encompass all types of boats. Most notably the rental boats and the small affordable runabout crowd most likely has a larger percentage of Captain Boneheads. What are we doing to shun them from operating on the lake. If anything the lake will be more appealing to the novice if you use your logic. Less "scary" = open invite to the rookie captain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Based on a scientific study?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior.

We have SEVERAL standards of behavior. They are ignored. Just like this speed limit will be ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.... Right now are[sic] standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS.

Talk about spin. There ARE speed limits on the lake. The 150ft law dictates speed as do the plethora of No Wake Zones. Marine Patrol has many reasons to pull someone over for excessive speed based on CURRENT LAW!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I do too. However, most people do travel on I-93 over the posted Speed Limit. By most people I mean the majority.

fatlazyless · 03-06-2008, 10:03 AM

NH has tens and maybe hundreds of smaller lakes, and whenever some neighbor shows up with a new 'go-fast boat,' the neighbors all whisper to each other....psssst....that big fast boat...it don't belong on this little lake...that fruitloop should trailer it over to Winnipesaukee and leave it there.....until Captain Fruitloop sooner or later gets the neighborly message and takes it to the Big Lake.

Therefore, all the problemo, go-fast be-loud, boats end up on the Big Lake.

Verdict: the Big Lake needs and wants a speed limit.

After consulting with Judge Judy, this case is closed.....I have spoken!~! Please exit the courtroom on opposite sides of the room. Thanks and have a nice day!

codeman671 · 03-06-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

The average Captain Bonehead is not driving a few hundred thousand dollar GFBL, he/she is driving a 21' bowrider, small cruiser, rental boat, pontoon, or jet ski. I think that the average performance boat owner has more respect for their boat and the laws. There are certainly exceptions to any rule, and in this case it is the drunk ones that usually offend. You do not have to drive a GFBL to get drunk and kill someone, I could get loaded and flatten someone in my pontoon boat.

I would be happy to provide my boat for an afternoon to do our own survey of who the offenders really are. An hour at Glendale, an hour by Bear and an hour by the Weirs on a busy weekend would be all that we would need to see the gross disregard of the existing laws.

I do agree that a speed limit would limit my choice of boats if I was shopping in the GF market. I have wanted to pick one up for a few years now and decided against it for the possibility of a speed limit. It would be stupid to spend $100k+ if there is a chance the law will happen. The performance boat market in this area is hurting badly so there are plenty of deals out there but come resale time you will feel it.

Since the proposed law is Winnipesaukee only, maybe the GFBL's will redirect to Winnisquam, Ossipee, or other bodies where I am sure they would be certainly welcome...

Bear Islander · 03-06-2008, 10:23 AM

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!

codeman671 · 03-06-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

Some wives get their way!

We are not missing your points, we just don't see eye to eye.. Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%???

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear islander

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Agreed, although I disagree with the standard in general, not the fact that it will be ignored. It is the fact that it is not needed that is my issue. The basis for it is simply not there.

KonaChick · 03-06-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!

Are you certain we're all missing your points or are your points simply so transparent they're difficult to see?

parrothead · 03-06-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I agree that most people are law abiding. But I still feel, and this is my opinion here, that many folks out there are breaking laws/regulations that they don't even know about. I think this is supported by the 70% of accidents that occur are by uneducated (to the rules of the water) boaters. Now I also want to say that the speed limit isn't really an issue that will affect my boating. My family's boat runs the most economical from 25 - 30 mph where it just gets on plane and that is where we run it. I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive. I guess after reading all the posts and information I could find over the last few days, I just don't see how regulating speed is going to help. I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help. I know form past posts that many have have complained about their run-ins with Marine Patrol, me included. But an increased enforcement presence would be more likely to put a dent in boaters operating "excessively" than a speed limit. And provide a safer environment for everyone to enjoy the lake.

Bear Islander · 03-06-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

.... Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%??? ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

I agree that most people are law abiding. ..... I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help.....

The old "let's have more training, education and enforcement" argument is a good one, except that IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

Those ideas all cost a lot of money, so once again IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

Speed limits are an imperfect solution. However they cost little to nothing and they ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

A partial solution that will in fact be implemented is preferable to better solutions that will not be implemented.

Instead of hacking away at speed limits perhaps you people should sit down and write legislation that will provide more education, training and increased numbers of MP officers. I'll tell you why you are not doing that, because you know it will never, never, never, get anywhere.

An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

parrothead · 03-06-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

I agree, who is going to provide the handcuffs and summons? The Marine Patrol and auxiliary are already spread too thin to patrol all the bodies of water in NH. Without enforcement of the speed limit, how is it going to be any more effective than the 150' rule, or excessive speed? I am naive, but not naive enough to believe that just because a law exists, that it will change everyones behavior. There are always a subset that will push the limits and the laws as they do now. And that is what the speed limit is aiming towards a small subset of the boating community. A Marine Patrol boat stationed somewhere with a radar gun will change the behavior of the boats around them, but what's to stop someone from speeding up once they are out of site. Regardless of the speed limit, I would imagine the presence of a Marine Patrol boat would cause everyone to be more cautious anyway. I am not really "hacking" at speed limits, as I said I don't really care one way or the other. I don't think that the speed of boats on Winni is the biggest issue facing a boater on Winni. And that the boating public's scourn should be more focused on the drunk boater, or the boater putting themselves and others in danger by not knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion, and I don't imagine it will change any views, but it seems that all this energy to get this one bill passed may have been better spent on other bigger issues.

Islander · 03-06-2008, 04:26 PM

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

hazelnut · 03-06-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

Re-Read the thread... This time read it carefully. Note: The GFBL boaters are NOT the problem. We are discussing the fact that the amature/ignorant/careless/captain bonehead comes in all shapes and sizes, most notably the family runabout. So what we lose a few GFBL's and that's the magic pill. *POOF* Winni is safe now. LAUGHABLE

hazelnut · 03-06-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

....I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive....

Very well put Parrothead I could not agree with you more!!!! This law will change NOTHING in terms of idiots/drunks/carelessness etc.

trfour · 03-06-2008, 02:04 PM

Adding a speed limit would be ludicrous... Putting teeth into the laws that are already on the books, makes much more sense to me.

Such as;

1. Vision and hearing Test

2. Handling and Driving Test

3.Boating certification Test, and on all copies of the above and including final in hand certificate in large letters, " Being found guilty of any offence related to boating safety brings a mandatory one month confiscation of the boat involved. And if the boat involved just happens to be a Rental, or not owned by the operator, So Be It-First Offence, and no exclusions. And I don't care if you know The President Of The United States.

Caught on the portible Weirs Bridge Cam awhile back

brk-lnt · 03-06-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.

The boats on the lake that can actually top 45MPH are really a minority, and even the ones that can top that speed don't necessarily do so on a regular basis. This is truly a solution looking for a problem, no matter how valiantly you try to position it.

The speed limit law, if it passes, will solve no problems, nor will it discourage the types of boaters that you don't like from coming to the lake. Being a moderately sized inland lake, Winni is the perfect Captain Bonehead magnet. All the people who want/can afford big boats, but couldn't actually handle such a craft in truly "big" water love to putter around Winni in relative safety.

Further, if more lakes enact this law, the people who really want to go fast are probably MORE likely to come to Winnipesaukee (larger body of water, more places to go fast, harder to patrol).

This debate rages on, and I've stayed out of it for the most part, but my prediction is that if it passes you won't really be able to determine a season without a speed limit from a season with a speed limit, if your measure is overall safety and comfort on the lake.

Islander · 03-06-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-Lent

Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.

Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.

You yourself had the Lake Michigan comment. But now the facts are in. GFBL's are leaving because of speed limits that have no even passed yet. Get ready for a big exodus and more peaceful Lake Winnipesaukee!!

You should go to that thread and read what they really think about speed limits and all of us.

brk-lnt · 03-06-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islandeer

Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.

Re-read my post that you quote, I did not say "nobody was going to leave", I said that a speed limit wouldn't discourage ( or measurably reduce ) the types of boaters that you want off of the lake.

Your quote of one example from another forum proves no points.

BroadHopper · 03-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

Interesting Debate

Just letting everyone and to join those that agree. I agree with Parrothead. The current laws are sufficient for safe boating.

Taz · 03-12-2008, 08:42 PM

I never understood how this could even get as far as it did. Its simple. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! The only thing the supporters can supply is their alleged opinion. I say alleged because its obvious to me that the supporters reasons having nothing to do with safety or speed. Laws should never be based on opinions or false fear, they should be based on facts.

I have been boating on Winni for almost 30 years and mostly weekends when its busiest and I never experienced or witnessed a close call with a high performance boat, only recreational bow riders that were traveling much slower than the proposed speed limit.

Bear Islander · 03-13-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

..... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! ...

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

brk-lnt · 03-14-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding 45MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

Bear Islander · 03-14-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Testimony that speed limits will decrease business is evidence against a speed limit. I was pointing out the opposite kind of evidence. Obviously there is evidence on both sides. But to say the pro speed limit side has NO EVIDENCE is false. Conflicting evidence does not equal not evidence.

SIKSUKR · 03-14-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. .

I must be misinformed.There have been far more deaths that occurred with speeds far UNDER your magic 45 mph.Where is your passion for those dead people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

I can say the same thing.The opposition likes to argue away the fact that by far the most boating deaths occur under the proposed 45 mph.However the accidents ARE real,the statistics ARE undeniable and the victims ARE still dead.

codeman671 · 03-14-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear islander

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear islander

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear islander

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

Bear Islander · 03-14-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

Yes, deaths happen at low speeds as well, they happen at no speed, on land, in the air, on skimobles etc. etc. The only relevant question is do they happen in boats at speeds greater than those proposed, the answer is YES! All of your comments along these lines are nothing but misdirection or denial. Lets stick to the point.

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/...akes-on-boats/

hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

codeman671 · 03-14-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

I'll respond to the rest later, but lets start with the Quabbin. It is a MAN-MADE body of water that was CREATED to be a water supply. It is not a natural body of water like Winnipesaukee is. It was CREATED to supply water to millions of people. You will also note that no direct contact with the water is allowed, no swimming or wading for instance is possible. Don't ya think that makes it different than Winnipesaukee????

A few quotes from the Mass Department of Conservation and Recreation:

Quote:

Quabbin Reservoir is one of the largest man-made public water supplies in the United States. Created in the 1930s by the construction of two huge earthen dams

Quote:

Things to know before you go
The primary purpose of DCR water and surrounding lands is drinking water supply. Public access, therefore, is carefully regulated and controlled to protect over 2 million people’s source of drinking water. State regulations require all entry and exit through gates or other designated areas only. Anything that could pollute the water supply system, such as litter or refuse of any sort, is prohibited. Please observe restrictions on recreational activities. Direct water contact activities, such as swimming and wading, are strictly prohibited by regulation.

Quote:

Outboard motors shall have a rating of not more than one-half the BIA or OBC rated horsepower for the boat and shall not exceed 20 horsepower, except that outboard motors for Commission boats less than fourteen 14 feet six inches in length shall not exceed ten horsepower

Source- http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/quabbin.htm

So tell me Bear Islander, is this a solid comparison to Lake Winnepesaukee? A basically uninhabited man-made body of water that does not have the depth that Winnipesaukee does and has a sole purpose of being a public water supply? Get over yourself...Who is misdirecting or in denial now???

codeman671 · 03-14-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/...akes-on-boats/

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear islander

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

Bear Islander · 03-14-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

Way back in 1973 the director of a New Hampshire children's camp had a problem on his lake. He petitioned the state for help, and eventually a speed limit was set on that lake.

You and I discussed this earlier in this same thread. That was the "decades" I was referring to in my post. Sorry if I made it to obscure. For the evidence you seek go back and read your own post!

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

hazelnut - As I keep reminding people, I have always wanted to get ride of the big cruisers. I hope they ARE next. I am confident that the lake will have a horsepower limit eventually. The new two strokes are much better than the old ones. They have to be to meet the new federal standards.

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.

Dave R · 03-14-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

The Long Lake Accident cannot happen here because half the people involved were killed and one of the boats was destroyed. Talk about silly arguments! It was already against the law to collide with another boat, to operate under the influence, and to operate at night without lights, and those laws did not help.

I thought one of the purposes of the speed limit was to increase traffic on the lake through tourism. Isn't that why some businesses support the limit?

hazelnut · 03-14-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!
hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

WE need the clue???? Ummmm yeah. Runabouts, Speedboats, and the like are NOT NOT NOT the offenders. If you want to champion a pollution effort start with 2-strokes and jet skis. If you want to champion an erosion campaign start with the cruisers. If we had a lake that banned 2-strokes and cruisers THEN and only THEN could talk less pollution and erosion. Getting rid of a FEW speed boats will have a little to no impact.... Here's a $20 keep the change.

My new nickname for Bear Islander is: "The King of Misinformation" a moniker that is well deserved.

Cal · 03-14-2008, 06:42 PM

I'm getting so discusted with this ,I hope you get your speed limit and every "go fast" goes somewhere else and now that YOUR lake is so safe , for every "go fast" that leaves you get 10 more Captain Boneheads in their 18' smokey , oil dripping two cycle bow riders to add to the congestion and idiocy of weekends on the lake.
I will personally laugh my azz off because you just shot yourself in your foot

Airwaves · 03-14-2008, 06:58 PM

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

brk-lnt · 03-14-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits.

While it's interesting to use data from other lakes as part of your argument, I think there are many things about Winnipesaukee that make it a unique case. So data from some other lake on speed-related accidents is barely more than mildly interesting here.

For the speed-related accidents you cite, I have never claimed that there have been zero speed-related accidents. Anytime humans are involved in something there will be deaths and accidents. You can regulate and legislate the piss out of something, and some people will still find a way to kill or maim themselves. That doesn't really support your argument.

Furthermore, while speed may have been a factor in these accidents, I don't see any data that speed was the ONLY factor. Were there other violations of existing laws that if obeyed would have prevented these accidents?

Also, what is the proportion of speed-related accidents and safety issues to the non speed-related accidents and safety issues.

Your arguments in favor of the speed limit law seem to revolve around the idea that implementing a speed limit will have a lake-wide effect on safety and quality of life for all recreational Winnipesaukee participants. The statistics and "facts" presented seem to indicate that implementing a speed-limit law is neither a "low hanging fruit" item, nor is it something that addresses the majority of issues that causes an unsafe environment on the lake. Read another way, it's easy to see why many people see ulterior motives in this law, it's solves little (if any problems) and seems to be of some real benefit or value to only a small minority of the overall population that has some sort of a vested interest in activities on the lake.

Quote:

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

And my neighbor used to complain about kids on his lawn. That doesn't mean that his complaints are any more than the rantings of an old man.

hazelnut · 03-14-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Erosion? Pollution? Hogwash!!! You bring up pollution as an issue related to the Speed Limit debate. You have to be kidding. There are hundreds of other more important pollution issues to deal with before you remove relatively clean burning V8 I/O boats from the lake. A 2 stroke pollutes in one day what an I/O would in a whole summer. Then you try and sell erosion??? Come ON! One Cabin Cruiser will destroy everything in its wake faster than a fleet of speed boats. Talk about a reach!

winnilaker · 03-14-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

There are MORE accidents that support banning waterskiing, tubing, wake boarding type sports. Why aren't you pushing for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

Since when does the proposed speed limit relate to water quality. Why don't you support all eliminating motorized craft? Now that's improving water quality!

How about all the businesses that oppose the speed limit? Last count there are more businesses that oppose the speed limit than support, hmmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

Has a SINGLE camp director ever gone to Marine Patrol or the State to ask for assistance in protecting the kids. Hmmm, very odd if no, could this be them jumping on YOUR band wagon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

There's plently of evidence that the elderly cause more accidents on our roadways, try banning them!
http://ezinearticles.com/?Elderly-Ca...ents&id=302159

There is more evidence supporting tractor trailers are dangerous to our roadways, try banning them!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1239138.shtml

There's evidence for anything, walking across the street is dangerous, so. But it's still safer to boat on Winni and clearly speeds over the proposed limits are not the problem.

I understand fear, I ride a motorcycle, I ride with fear all the time. Doesn't mean I won't do it. Doesn't mean I want existing laws changed to curve my fear. What it means, is that I understand the resources available to me and I compromise by enjoying ones that make me feel the safest.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 03-14-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough? {snip}
You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

Of course accidents exist and people die in some accidents. In the speed threads boating accidents are reported and are important to help justify a perceived need for boat speed limits. So, are there similar statistics about snowmobiling accidents?

Snowmobilers: are there many sled collisions (unreported) or accidents?

There's a very large percent of boating hours on the Lake compared to Snowmobile hours on the Lake IMO. Overwhelmingly more people on boats for more hours a year than there are people on snowmobiles. Fewer targets (excuse the term) for snowmobiles than there are for boats but look at the death and accident rates.

I read about far more accidents and deaths that involve SNOWMOBILES rather than boats around the Lake. I conclude that boating is much safer than snowmobiling. Are there advocates and/or pending legislation to regulate snowmobiles to protect the public from them and them from each other?

I'll address the camps and kayaks in another post when I have more time. I hear the deaths excuse as a need for boat speeds and look at boating deaths compared to snowmobile deaths and it makes me think and wonder ...

fatlazyless · 03-14-2008, 10:19 PM

Just checked the status of HB847, and nothing new happening since it passed the House on January 31. Did, however, notice that one of the House sponsors who is on the Transportation Committee is Sid "Live Free & Lovett" Lovett, a Democrat from Holderness.

Guess what? Holderness is the home town of Squam Lake. Looks like the movie 'On Golden Pond' could be coming to a Big Lake near you, sometime soon!

I have no clue, but it would be interesting to know if he lives right on Squam Lake? The Squamies are coming, the Squamies are coming....,it's like a Squamie plague with no jetskis, no houseboats, and Squam's 40/20 speed limit. Hey now, there's a 5mph concession....how 'bout that?

Dave R · 02-16-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

If the 25mph night-time speed limit is imposed, the only way I would be able to keep the bow down so I could see in front of my boat, would be to break the speed limit to get up on plane and stay there (GASP!) or motor at no-wake speed and, to borrow from Dave_R, no-wake speed is not the most efficient speed possible on a boat.

Dave_R, as far as I know, it’s not a “design issue” that needs to be addressed but then again, I’m not a designer. From my own personal experience and what little bit I’ve read about boat design, any boat that has a “planing” type of hull will encounter a bow high condition until it reaches planing speed. Obviously, the lighter and/or shorter the boat, the lower the planing speed will be. You’ve “never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner” because we (the performance boat owner/driver) KNOW it’s unsafe and our intent is to get up on plane as soon as we are clear of traffic (this is where the 150’ rule comes into play!) so that we CAN see in front of us! Apparently, the intent IS to keep a certain type of boat off the lake, because the longer and heavier a boat is, the higher the minimum planing speed of said boat. So if the 25mph limit is imposed, a lot of performance boat owners won’t be able to safely use their boat at night.

Dave_R, in one paragraph you say “If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense” and in the next paragraph “It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.”, referring to bow high operation. We can’t have it both ways. Most, maybe not all, performance boats can’t “reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see” (to meet the proposed 25mph night-time limit) and still operate efficiently. I don’t want to waste the fuel (and money) by being on the lake at night and only go “no-wake” speed and besides, we’ve already heard from the people claiming we pollute more than any other type of boat (including the two-cycle outboards?) so it’s really not advisable for that reason also.

This is why the current standard, “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”, is STILL the best alternative. It’s not the performance boaters making the lake unsafe, it’s the boneheads that either don’t know or ignore the existing laws that are unsafe. Fund the MP so they can enforce the existing laws and ticket THEM to death until they either get it straight or stop coming here altogether but don’t legislate us to death for their ignorance and/or arrogance.

OK, rip me apart; I know someone out there wants to do it.

I am very much against speed limits. I don't want to rip anyone apart. I like to see boats like your on the lake even though I have no desire to own one or hear one if it's loud. Does yours have those cool purple graphics Baja seems to sell a lot of?

I disagree about fuel efficiency, hulls are most efficient at displacement speeds. They are least efficient when running bow high and making a big wake. Planing hulls are also pretty efficient (some nearly as efficient as displacement speed) when cleanly up on plane, but no faster. I can see how some GFBL boats would be propped such that even at idle speed, they are above displacement speed and perhaps getting a little less MPG than they would cleanly up on plane, but the difference would be negligible and the MPG would be vastly superior to plowing speed.

Say the speed limit passes:

If you operate your boat at idle, in gear, the bow will be down enough to see properly and you'll be well below the proposed speed limit and operating safely, efficiently and legally.

If you operate at 24 MPH with the bow blocking your forward vision, you'll be legally staying below the speed limit, but not very safe, and you'll be wasting a bunch of fuel.

If you operate at 26 MPH with the bow down, and light conditions allow you to do this safely, you'll be doing the smartest thing, but breaking the law.

If you have a boat that can't plane below 25 MPH, you still can operate at night safely and legally, it's just not much fun.

I hope it does not pass.

02-15-2008, 05:24 PM	#1
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,604 Thanks: 223 Thanked 856 Times in 519 Posts	Honestly, at both settings on the exhaust (thru-hull and diverted down) as long as the decibel level meets state law why ban it??? Hmm, I can go from legal to even quieter and back again with a switch. Maybe mandate that if equipped it needs to be on the quieter setting at night? As far as the picture posted by APS, from the distance that the picture was taken it is hard to see the driver anyhow. It has nothing to do with the nose of the boat...That is misleading. Go figure? I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake. To heck with the 130mph Cat, below is a speedo pic from my boat, 194mph. Bet the Cat can't do that! (actually it was a bad ground that whacked out the speedo but the picture was priceless) Attached Images

03-05-2008, 03:04 PM	#16
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Interesting Debate I have spent that last two days at lunch reading through all of these posts. And after reading the posts from both sides of the issue, I don't think a speed limit is the answer to the problem. The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid. You become an obstruction on the highway even in the far right lane. A law is already on the books that says you should not operate your boat at an "excessive" speed. The middle of the Broads on a Tuesday and Meredith Bay on a Saturday call for different speed considerations. A Marine Patrol officer can stop you if you are operating your boat in a manner that can cause harm to you or your fellow boaters. The problem is that they can't be everywhere at all times, stopping every captain bone head. Excessive speed could be headway speed if you are coming into shore and there are other boats or swimmers in your area, or going 200 mph and weaving through other boat traffic. I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower. If you want to fight for something, then perhaps we should be trying to get more funding for boating safety. Just think what could have happened if both sides pooled all the money they used to lobby for this one bill, and used it to fund boater education, or providing a larger better trained Marine Patrol auxiliary. The likelihood of you doing something stupid decreases proportionately with your likelihood of getting caught. I pulled up and read though the USCG accident statistics that have been quoted many times during this discussion. While excessive speed is a cause of accidents/fatalities I find other statistics more frightening. The first is that "70% of reported fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction." Second that the leading cause of fatalities is alcohol related fatalities. And finally that the leading cause of accidents is operator inattentiveness. These are education/enforcement issues, and not based on anything else. So why isn't there a big push or outcry for education and enforcement? I just don't get it. I guess I am just naive, but I am most "afraid" of the boater that doesn't know what they are doing, or drunk. Because they can cause harm at any speed. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

03-05-2008, 09:14 PM	#17
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	Hey Parrothead...maybe not where you drive, but here in the NH lakes region, the speed limits on the roads are definately enforced. Every single day, I always see those blue lights at work, with another car stopped for something, and it's my guess it is usually for speeding. On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that. Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark.. __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store!

03-05-2008, 11:10 PM	#18
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	No thank you FLL, I guess we have different experiences, but I did think out my remarks and still stand by them. I still believe that a speed limit will just be one more regulation that capt. bone head will disregard. I still believe that the Marine Patrol does not have enough of a presence on the lake to adequately enforce it. I still believe that the biggest issue facing boater safety is that some boaters do not follow the existing laws. People drive while intoxicated, do not pay attention to where they are going, or get too close to other boats,swimmers, and land. I still stand the original premise of my post that boater education and more enforcement will make the lake safer, and that a speed limit will not make as big an impact. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

03-05-2008, 11:30 PM	#19
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	Well, in my opinion, it would just seem to me that sighting a hand held, radar, speed detector on a speeding 32' fiberglass hull from a distance of one quarter mile would be about as difficult as hitting a large barn with a snowball from thirty feet. The surface and angular design of a fiberglass boat should easily be detected as it moves across the lake. It's about as non-stealthy as a moving object can be, plus there's the noise, wake, bright colors, lights, and rooster tail of water. Add to this the speeder's 'fear factor' for getting dunned through their next three year's car insurance bill, no matter which state you call home. ......sorry....but that's the way I see it. __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store!

03-04-2008, 04:06 PM	#15
winnidiver Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 54 Blog Entries: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...Duck_8-64.jpgI have read all the speed limit debate.I have come to the conclusion that we don't need speed limits. I think what we are all talking about is bad operators and bigger boats.There are way more boats than there use to be and they are bigger.It makes the lake seem more crowded than it is. A 30' boat going by at 25 seems a lot faster and more dangerous then a 16' boat at the same distance and speed. A lot of 25 to 30 foot boats in a smaller area makes people feel uncomfitable ,even if you are in a similar sized boat. I put up a picture from another thread to show what I mean.That was Alton in the seventies. Back then there were not many boats over 20'.The bay seemed bigger then. There is nothing we can do about more and bigger boats.But we can all set a example in our boating and encourage the state to do more enforcement. I think that is the real problem,better enforcement of the laws costs money.Passing a new law to appease the people who are complaining cost nothing.

03-06-2008, 12:06 AM	#20
michael c Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 94 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	2x4 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 __________________ " Wisdom does not always come with age...sometimes age comes by itself ! "

03-06-2008, 08:54 AM	#22
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	My use of Route 93 is pretty much from exit 20 to exit 42 and that's of what I speak. On Friday evenings, the traffic is probably ten-twenty times heavier than on a tuesday at 10am. With speed enforcement, It's sort of like duck hunting....a flock of 20 fly past....and maybe one gets hit. There's a well known speed trap at the south end of Franconia Notch on Rt 93-south, where the road signs are all brown indicating a parkway. The road returns from one lane to two, it's supports a 70mph speed but the limit is still 45mph until you get to the next sign that says 65mph. Basically, there's usually no crowds of traffic.....it's cruise control country. It seems like with less traffic and a more empty route 93, the traffic settles on 65-70tops, and people drive a lot more polite. The state police & highway patrol stake it out behind the snowbanks, or blending into the woods, and with not much traffic, a speeder is like a sitting duck. Last time I was stopped for speeding was over three years ago, by a Thornton officer, who cut me a break, and lowered my offense by one level. It takes three years, here in NH, for a regular class 3 license, to get "safe' again with your ins co. Do not know how long it takes for a cdl-a to get "safe' again, and do not want to find out. __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store! Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-09-2008 at 06:21 PM.

03-06-2008, 09:38 AM	#25
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	I'm sure Capt. Bonehead's wife will have a huge impact on his boating purchases....it's worked for years on our highways and roads.

03-06-2008, 10:03 AM	#27
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	NH has tens and maybe hundreds of smaller lakes, and whenever some neighbor shows up with a new 'go-fast boat,' the neighbors all whisper to each other....psssst....that big fast boat...it don't belong on this little lake...that fruitloop should trailer it over to Winnipesaukee and leave it there.....until Captain Fruitloop sooner or later gets the neighborly message and takes it to the Big Lake. Therefore, all the problemo, go-fast be-loud, boats end up on the Big Lake. Verdict: the Big Lake needs and wants a speed limit. After consulting with Judge Judy, this case is closed.....I have spoken!~! Please exit the courtroom on opposite sides of the room. Thanks and have a nice day! __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store! Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-09-2008 at 06:24 PM.

03-06-2008, 10:23 AM	#29
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,766 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point. You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few. Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price. They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean. The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument! Some wives get their way!

03-06-2008, 04:26 PM	#35
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee. "I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!" Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine. Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

03-06-2008, 02:04 PM	#38
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,067 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	Enough Already Adding a speed limit would be ludicrous... Putting teeth into the laws that are already on the books, makes much more sense to me. Such as; 1. Vision and hearing Test 2. Handling and Driving Test 3.Boating certification Test, and on all copies of the above and including final in hand certificate in large letters, " Being found guilty of any offence related to boating safety brings a mandatory one month confiscation of the boat involved. And if the boat involved just happens to be a Rental, or not owned by the operator, So Be It-First Offence, and no exclusions. And I don't care if you know The President Of The United States. Caught on the portible Weirs Bridge Cam awhile back Attached Images __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html Last edited by trfour; 03-06-2008 at 06:39 PM.

03-12-2008, 08:42 PM	#43
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 347 Thanks: 3 Thanked 70 Times in 47 Posts	speed limit I never understood how this could even get as far as it did. Its simple. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! The only thing the supporters can supply is their alleged opinion. I say alleged because its obvious to me that the supporters reasons having nothing to do with safety or speed. Laws should never be based on opinions or false fear, they should be based on facts. I have been boating on Winni for almost 30 years and mostly weekends when its busiest and I never experienced or witnessed a close call with a high performance boat, only recreational bow riders that were traveling much slower than the proposed speed limit.

03-14-2008, 06:42 PM	#55
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	I'm getting so discusted with this ,I hope you get your speed limit and every "go fast" goes somewhere else and now that YOUR lake is so safe , for every "go fast" that leaves you get 10 more Captain Boneheads in their 18' smokey , oil dripping two cycle bow riders to add to the congestion and idiocy of weekends on the lake. I will personally laugh my azz off because you just shot yourself in your foot __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

03-14-2008, 06:58 PM	#56
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster. So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter? Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

03-14-2008, 10:19 PM	#61
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,174 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	Just checked the status of HB847, and nothing new happening since it passed the House on January 31. Did, however, notice that one of the House sponsors who is on the Transportation Committee is Sid "Live Free & Lovett" Lovett, a Democrat from Holderness. Guess what? Holderness is the home town of Squam Lake. Looks like the movie 'On Golden Pond' could be coming to a Big Lake near you, sometime soon! I have no clue, but it would be interesting to know if he lives right on Squam Lake? The Squamies are coming, the Squamies are coming....,it's like a Squamie plague with no jetskis, no houseboats, and Squam's 40/20 speed limit. Hey now, there's a 5mph concession....how 'bout that? __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store! Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-15-2008 at 07:05 PM.

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